Declined Peerages | marquess | 1/4/12 10:38 PM | It occurred to me that there has never been a thread there that deals
with those who either refused peerages or equally peerage promotions: Marquis of Lansdowne refused promotion to the dukedom of Kerry (circa1857), not sure if the next marquis was offered a dukedom or the marquis after him? I think he may have refused because he thought he wasn't rich enough for a dukedom. The earls of Derby refused a promotion to a dukedom, one of them saying something about tainting these strawberry leaves. The Viscount Dillion circa 1800's refused a promotion to an earldom, on the basis that as a viscount he was ahead of many others whom he knew were not really gentle, but as an earl he would have to be behind some who were not. The earl of Elgin and Kincardine refused a promotion to a marquisate, which was offered by Gladstone. Lord Leconfield refused a promotion to an earldom and later regretted it. Disraeli refused a dukedom. The first earl of Athlone refused a marquisate on the grounds that it sounded too foreign sounding. Hugh Montgomery Massingbird's ancestor refused a baronetcy, but we are going too low here. In Robert Blake's biography of Disraeli, there is mention of a letter in which the then marquis of Ormonde solicits the PM for a dukedom, on the basis that his ancestor had held a similar rank. Can anyone add any more to this list. |
Re: Declined Peerages | Dr Raveem Ismail | 1/4/12 11:45 PM | Where would the list be without Churchill's declining of a dukedom? Ferguson's history of the Rothschilds makes mention of a baronetcy being initially declined since a seat in the Lords was sought. What about life peerages declined, or is that going even lower :D? Raveem. |
Re: Declined Peerages | marquess | 1/5/12 12:28 AM | I would prefer not to discuss Life Peerages, as they would have died
out with the holder anyway. Excellent point about Churchill, how could I omit that one. |
Re: Declined Peerages | Richard R | 1/5/12 1:24 AM | See the group's December 2010 posting string here:
http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news/browse_thread/thread/b2b40b36f0720812/3211772f4b719b01?lnk=gst&q=churchill+dukedom# Where the background to 'Churchill's dukedom' is given. The string also mentions Lansdowne, Salisbury, Disraeli, Derby, Harewood and Portsmouth as decliners of the higher honour. > > Raveem.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
Re: Declined Peerages | sealion | 1/5/12 2:41 AM | There's a good list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_declined_a_British_honour -------------------------------------------------- > -- |
Re: Declined Peerages | Richard R | 1/5/12 4:15 AM | That's an excellent list which was unknown to me til now. V
comprehensive. Did you (Leigh) have a hand in producing it? Interesting it includes one diplomat who declined Royal Victorian honours, and interesting that Lowry holds the record for most declines. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_declined_a_Briti... > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "marquess" <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> > >http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - |
Re: Declined Peerages | marquess | 1/5/12 5:58 AM | A good list, yes! Two that I omitted are Gladstone and Palmerston, I
know that Queen Victoria offered him an earldom and Gladstone refused a peerage on more than one occasion. I recall David Williamson once saying that there was talk of making 'Bobberty' perhaps the 4th marquis of Salisbury a duke, or was he referring to the 3rd marquis? > > >http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - |
Re: Declined Peerages | Richard R | 1/5/12 7:30 AM | The wiki list indicates a dukedom was twice offered to the 3rd
Marquess (which makes sense, since he was the greatest Cecil since Burleigh & his son Robert Cecil): "Salisbury was offered a dukedom by Queen Victoria in 1886 [after his first brief tenure, spanning 2 years] and 1892 [after his second tenure spanning 6 years], but declined both offers, citing the prohibitive cost of the lifestyle dukes were expected to maintain." I think it's reliable since it cites the magnificent Andrew Roberts biography of Lord S. I'll check it tonight to confirm that's the case. > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.-Hidequoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - |
Re: Declined Peerages | the_ver...@comcast.net | 1/5/12 12:12 PM | There is *nothing* lower than a life peerage. They are not a honour- they are an insult unto heaven! "Hitch not the Chariot of State to the twin steeds of Government and Religion, for down that path lies chaos" Raveem. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/peerage-news/-/WDd4lLsMmBUJ.
|
Re: Declined Peerages | sealion | 1/5/12 3:55 PM | As much as I'd like to, I can claim no credit whatsoever for the list. Whilst I was aware of the more obvious ones (eg Churchill, Salisbury, Lansdowne) there are a lot of other ones of which I was totally unaware until now. Leigh -------------------------------------------------- |
Re: Declined Peerages | ThomasFoolery | 1/5/12 4:46 PM | Just for the record, I've been offered and declined an earldom every
New Year's Honours List for the past nine years. I'll probably cave in one of these days..... Has there ever been a time when declining a peerage was not necessarily possible? Is there, theoretically, a rule that an individual must accept a peerage before being created on. Was there a time when the Sovereign (either on the government's advise or independently) could draw up Letters Patent and, viola, make a new peer. I could see this process being used to get someone "out of the way". What about way back when Peers were created by summoning them to Parliament. Did those called have much of a choice in the matter? > From: "Richard R" <r_rut...@hotmail.com> > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - |
Re: Declined Peerages | Dr Raveem Ismail | 1/5/12 5:09 PM | I think the group's disapproval of life peerages stems from the difference between their substance and what they replaced. In and of themselves, they aren't a bad addition to the honours system, it's just that they were used as an instrument to destroy an older institution, as foreseen by Powell and Foot. Raveem. |
Re: Declined Peerages | sealion | 1/5/12 6:56 PM | As a result of Richard's post, I did some more research into the question of the 3rd Marquess of Lansdowne's proposed promotion to the dukedom of Kerry. It certainly featured in a number of newspaper articles in late August/early September 1857 where a typical report states that "the new title of the Marquis of Lansdowne is to be the Duke of Kerry. He will be the first Duke to be created by Her Majesty. The Earl of Fife is to made an English peer [he was, as Baron Skene], and Lord Robert Grosvenor to be promoted to an English barony, under the title, probably, of Baron Ebury." [Another report speculates that Lord Robert's title would be Lord Middlesex]. In January 1863 the "Derby Mercury" reported that "There will be two Dukes Lansdowne died a couple of weeks later and the Dukedom of Kerry was never Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:15 PM To: "Peerage News" <peerag...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Declined Peerages |
Re: Declined Peerages | marquess | 1/5/12 7:07 PM | Didn't the father of the first baron Carberry decline a peerage, and
his son was subsequently created a peer, with the special remainder to the heirs male of his father? On the subject of the dukedom of Kerry, there was a Punch cartoon on the subject, where Mr Punch commends the marquis on declining the honour. > From: "Richard R" <r_rut...@hotmail.com> > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - |
Re: Declined Peerages | www.maltagenealogy.com | 1/5/12 7:46 PM | No mention of Capt Phillips, the first husband of HRH, Princess Royal
not accepting an Earldom ? > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.-Hidequotedtext - |
Re: Declined Peerages | marquess | 1/5/12 8:30 PM | Was he actually offered an earldom or did he make it clear that he
didn't want one--so therefore was not offered one? The late Sir Angus, was offered an earldom. Harold Macmillan offered an earldom in the 60's and declined it? On Jan 6, 10:46 am, "www.maltagenealogy.com" <tancarvil...@gmail.com> wrote: |
Re: Declined Peerages | Richard R | 1/6/12 1:48 AM | Thanks Leigh, all v interesting. Here's what I've found in Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography mentions: 3rd MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE's biog: In September 1857 Palmerston conveyed the queen's offer of a dukedom, and it was widely regretted that modesty and an unwillingness to exchange ‘that name which has now been mine for so many years, & with which my publick character such as it is has become identified’ (BL, Bowood MSS, Lans. 3/42/72) led him to decline the honour. [BL ref is to a British Library documents source] 1st DUKE OF WESTMINTER's biog: ... in 1871 Gladstone asked the [2nd] marquess to move the address in the Lords, and the next year offered him office as under-secretary at the War Office, which was declined. Nevertheless, when Grosvenor was made duke of Westminster in Gladstone's resignation honours in February 1874 it was not in recognition of any particular political or national services. This, the only dukedom in the UK peerage created in Victoria's reign apart from those bestowed on members of the royal family (Abercorn's dukedom of 1868 was in the Irish peerage), and the last new non-royal dukedom of modern times, appears to have been conferred chiefly on the grounds of Westminster's immense wealth and high social position. The one clue on motivation is unhelpful. Hugh Lupus's cousin Lord Granville wrote to Gladstone a week before the announcement, asking ‘has it ever crossed you [sic] to make your Cheshire neighbour a Duke’, to which the reply was ‘your suggestion about Westminster has often crossed my mind and I have every disposition to recommend it’ (Gladstone and Granville, nos. 976–7). The dukedom was certainly very pleasing to Victoria, because of her fondness for Constance, the new duchess, and may have been an inexpensive way for Gladstone to improve relations with the queen. It also served to signal Gladstone's continuing friendship with the whig aristocracy, much to the disgust of Hugh's mother, who had become very reactionary in her views and feared and loathed Gladstone as a dangerous demagogic maniac. [There's no earlier (eg 1863) mention in either the 1st Duke's or his father's ODNB entry of consideration to promote the 1st Marquess to duke. He died in 1869.] 1 BARON PORTMAN's biog: No mention of promotion to earl in his very short biog (3 short paras in ODNB). His political activity was minimal (MP between 1823 & 1833) and he was elevated to the peerage as Baron Portman in 1837, after which "[ODNB] For some time he was a prominent speaker in the House of Lords". He sat on the Duchy of Cornwall Council from 1840 until his death in 1888 (and was High Steward of it from 1865). His role in this Council probably played a large part in his promotion to Viscount in 1873. 1 BARON HOUGHTON: ...He declined the offer of a barony in 1856... . Milnes was created Baron Houghton on 20 August 1863. The MACKINNON: There's no mention of the offer of a peerage in The Mackinnon's ODNB brief biog (3 paras). |
Re: Declined Peerages | marquess | 1/6/12 2:57 AM | Thanks Richard for that interesting addition to an already interesting
thread, I recall having seen mention of that letter in the C.P. Pity that there were so few creations in the Victorian era of dukes, when it was already becoming clear that one didn't need to stinking rich to be peer. I feel that the sparsity of ducal creations in the Victorian period, probably led partially to the refusal of the honour on at least two occasions. Contrast this to the William & Mary-George I period, when the honour was more liberally conveyed-- and there were no refusals. |
Re: Declined Peerages | Jonathan | 1/6/12 5:27 AM | On Jan 6, 4:30 am, marquess <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Was he actually offered an earldom or did he make it clear that heI thought it was actually his wife who made it clear he did not want one. |
Re: Declined Peerages | Turenne | 1/6/12 5:42 AM | I seem to remember that Lord Montgomery was somewhat irked by only being offered a viscountcy and was holding out for an earldom. Is this true, or is my memory playing tricks on me? RL |
Re: Declined Peerages | marquess | 1/6/12 4:21 PM | I have always wondered why he didn't get an earldom, after that great
victory. This I think reflects partially my argument about the inflation of honours, men in the past were made earls for much much less, than a great victory like Alemein. Henry St John was mortified at not being made an earl, but he has done much less to merit such an honour than Monty. |
RE: Declined Peerages | Nick Kingsley | 1/6/12 11:12 PM | Having been away for a few days I have only just caught up with this interesting thread. Lady Acland's book on the Acland family says that no less than three generations of Aclands in the 19th and early 20th centuries declined peerages, which if true must be some sort of record. Nick Kingsley Disraeli refused a dukedom. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups |
Re: Declined Peerages | Richard R | 1/7/12 1:56 AM | I'm just reading the 10th of 12 volumes of the James Lees-Milne
diaries. A delicious treat and one I shall very much regret coming to an end. In it, his editor reveals that JL-M declined a CBE in 1993 - a year before his death. He's not in Wiki's list On Jan 7, 7:12 am, "Nick Kingsley" <nick.kings...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: |
Re: Declined Peerages | Guru | 1/12/12 10:15 PM | Richard Casey declined a peerage around 1946 after his term as govenor of Bengal so that he could return to Australian politics. He later accepted a life peerage in 1960. Sir Isaac Isaacs was also offered a peerage when appointed Govenor General of Australia in 1930 which he declined. |
Re: Declined Peerages | marquess | 1/12/12 10:34 PM | Thanks Guru, didn't know about those two.
|
Re: Declined Peerages | DB | 1/13/12 11:03 AM | One name I haven't seen mentioned is Sir Henry Babington Smith GBE CH
KCB CSI (1863-1923). According to the online DNB "He declined Campbell- Bannerman's offer to become governor of Bombay because it would have meant a peerage. Smith explained to his children: ‘[n]o man is wise who burdens a large family with such trappings. I did without them and so can you I think Tennyson declined a baronetcy twice before accepting a peerage. On Jan 13, 6:34 am, marquess <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Thanks Guru, didn't know about those two. > > On Jan 13, 1:15 pm, Guru <si...@travelrite.com.au> wrote: > > > > > Richard Casey declined a peerage around 1946 after his term as govenor > > of Bengal so that he could return to Australian politics. He later > > accepted a life peerage in 1960. > > > Sir Isaac Isaacs was also offered a peerage when appointed Govenor > > General of Australia in 1930 which he declined.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
Re: Declined Peerages | ThomasFoolery | 1/13/12 2:53 PM | This is a little off topic, but mention of Tennyson reminded me of a
question I'd had. Was Charles Dickens ever offered any sort of honour? He was undoubtedly one of the (if not the single) most famous writers of his era and had some involvement with charities to boot. He's memorialized in Westminster Abbey. Was his writing to political or reformist? I've just always wondered why never got anything. |
Re: Declined Peerages | Turenne | 1/13/12 3:31 PM | One of his illustrators, George Cattermole, was offered a knighthood, but declined...I don't think that Dickens was offered an honour. Some Victorian honours were somewhat confusing; Gilbert became a knight, but Sullivan didn't.... RL |
Re: Declined Peerages | DB | 1/14/12 2:54 AM | Sullivan was knighted in 1883, Gilbert in 1907. Sullivan also received
the MVO |
Re: Declined Peerages | Richard R | 1/14/12 4:18 AM | Thanks DB. The ODNB entry for Sir William Schwenck GILBERT (1836-1911)
says he was "the first dramatist ever to receive [a knighthood, in 1907]". His collaborator's Who's Who entry (Sir Arthur Seymour SULLIVAN (1842-1900)) refers to the composer's knighthood in 1883, but omits mention of his MVO. But the award is confirmed in The London Gazette dated 9 July 1897 (p 3820) |
Re: Declined Peerages | Turenne | 1/14/12 11:25 AM | I don't know why I don't check things properly; my tutor used to make the same complaint..... RL |