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.

Where would the list be without Churchill's declining of a dukedom?

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.

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 -

There's a good list at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_declined_a_British_honour

--------------------------------------------------
From: "marquess" <marquess...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 5:38 PM
To: "Peerage News" <peerag...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Declined Peerages

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Peerage News" group.
> To post to this group, send email to peerag...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.
>

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.

On Jan 5, 10:41 am, "Leigh Rayment" <lraym...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> There's a good list at
>

> 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 -

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 -

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 -

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"
Leto II

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.

To post to this group, send email to peerag...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.

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

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Richard R" <r_ru...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:15 PM
To: "Peerage News" <peerag...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Declined Peerages

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?

On Jan 5, 6:55 pm, "Leigh Rayment" <lraym...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> 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
>
> --------------------------------------------------

> From: "Richard R" <r_rut...@hotmail.com>
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -

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.

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
created on the marriage of the Prince of Wales - the Marquis of Lansdowne
and the Marquis of Westminster; the former will take the title of Duke of
Kerry, and the latter either Duke of Grosvenor or West [presumably
Westminster]. Lord Portman is to be created Earl of Dorset [which never
happened]. Mr Monckton Milnes and Mr Mackinnon, whose names we mentioned in
our last impression about those about to be raised to the Upper House, will
take, the title the title of Lord Pomfret [notwithstanding that there was
still a barony of Pomfret in existence in 1863 - his title became Baron
Houghton], the latter, Lord Anerage.
[The only possible candidate that I can find for this peerage is William
Alexander Mackinnon, who was then MP for Lymington]. Mr White, the Irish
Lord of the Treasury, will also be created a peer [which he was, as Baron
Annaly]."

Lansdowne died a couple of weeks later and the Dukedom of Kerry was never
created.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Richard R" <r_ru...@hotmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:15 PM
To: "Peerage News" <peerag...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Declined Peerages

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 -

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 -

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:

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).

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.

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 he
> didn't want one--so therefore was not offered one?

I thought it was actually his wife who made it clear he did not want
one.

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

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.

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
"Peerage News" group.
To post to this group, send email to peerag...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news?hl=en.

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:

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.

Thanks Guru, didn't know about those two.

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 -

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.

On Jan 13, 10:53 pm, ThomasFoolery <michaelmp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

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

Sullivan was knighted in 1883, Gilbert in 1907. Sullivan also received
the MVO

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)

On Jan 14, 12:18 pm, Richard R <r_rut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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)
>

I don't know why I don't check things properly; my tutor used to make
the same complaint.....

RL