Churchill and a peerage

[charl...@gmail.com]

Does anyone know why Churchill refused to accept a peerage. Certainly
his leadership during WWII would have qualified for one, and I am sure
it was offered.

Any leads to any thoughts he expressed on it, or your own suppositions
would be welcome.

[jimlancaster]

Duke of Westerham? Marquis of Puddleduck Lane?

There are several reasons why Churchill declined a peerage when Queen
Elizabeth II offered to make him a Duke on 5 April 1955. It is an intriguing
story and well worth reading. All is revealed in Martin Gilbert's WSC vol
VIII pp 1123-4, as recounted by Jock Colville.

Jim Lancaster

[charl...@gmail.com]

Thanks! I have that book. I will read it tonight.

[Ian Chamberlain]

Indeed a peerage was offered. It had become typical for all former prime Ministers to be offered an "Earldom" as their reward for their loyal service - yet at the time it was thought that Sir Winston deserved more.  It was therefore decided that he should be offered a Dukedom (of London).  Winston did refuse. There are a number of theories why:

One says that Queen Elizabeth was not so keen on a Dukedom being offered and would only offer if she was sure it would be turned down.  When the offer came it was with a kind of "...I know you wish to stay in the House of Commons, but would you like..."  element!  Churchill was tipped off and did as his monarch requested, refusing politely.  This seems to me to be a little ungenerous of Her Majesty, but I suppose it is entirely feasible.

Another theory is that Churchill's inverted snobbery meant that he wished to remain one of the people (earlier he had turned down the order of the Garter after being given "the order of the boot" by the British people).  Plus Churchill was by now such a mega-hero, a mere Dukedom was almost a demotion in eyes of his adoring public.  Being Winston Churchill was a greater title than being The Duke of London.

Churchill himself explained his refusal of the Dukedom of London because his son Randolph did not wish to serve in the house of Lords.

My personal guess is a combination of all three.  I'll be interested to read other theories or confirmation of the ones above.

Ian from www.winston-churchill-leadership.com

--
Ian Chamberlain, Fully Equipped Ltd
Office Tel: +33 56 35 00 865
Cellphone: +44 79 73 19 89 10
www.fullyequipped.biz
www.winston-churchill-leadership.com

[Voorden, Peter van]

If he had accepted , he than became a member of the house of lords.

I think is it was his wish to be a member of the house of commons as
long as possible.

With kind regards ,

Peter van Voorden

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Church...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Church...@googlegroups.com] Namens charl...@gmail.com
Verzonden: woensdag 9 mei 2007 5:07
Aan: ChurchillChat
Onderwerp: [ChurchillChat] Churchill and a peerage

-------------------------------------
The information included in this message is personal and/or
confidential and intended exclusively for the addressees as
stated. This message and/or the accompanying documents may contain
confidential information and should be handled accordingly. If you
are not the intended reader of this message, we urgently request
that you notify Centric immediately and that you delete this e-
mail and any copies of it from your system and destroy any
printouts immediately.
It is forbidden to distribute, reproduce, use or disclose the
information in this e-mail to third parties without obtaining
prior permission from Centric. We expressly point out that there
are risks associated with the use of e-mail. Centric and the
companies within the group shall not accept any liability
whatsoever for damage resulting from the use of e-mail. Legally
binding obligations can only arise for Centric by means of a
written instrument, signed by an authorized representative of
Centric.
-------------------------------------

[Rafal Heydel-Mankoo]

In the early 50s Lord Salisbury had seriously suggested Churchill be sent up
to the Lords whilst remaining Prime Minister. Salisbury believed this would
enable WSC to fade away gracefully as elder statesman whilst enabling
Anthony Eden to assume the dominant position in the Commons. Lord Moran
agreed with Salisbury but Jock Colville, who had a better understanding of
Churchill's character, doubted the Great Man would agree. Colville had
discussed the subject of a peerage in the past and Churchill had
sarcastically replied that he would have to become the Duke of Chartwell and
Randolph would be the Marquess of Toodledo. It should also be noted that
Churchill did not have much regard for the upper chamber (Salisbury
apparently once said that Churchill "regards us in the Lords as a rather
disreputable collection of old gentlemen") and it was therefore agreed that
only Her Majesty could convince Churchill to go the Lords. Salisbury
suggested plans be set in motion but little progress was made and the
concept of a Lord Churchill died a natural death.

In 1947 Churchill purchased Bardogs Farm (next to Chartwell). In a letter to
his barrister, Leslie Graham-Dixon, discussing a possible dukedom, Churchill
wrote: "Duke of Bardogs would sound well, and Randolph could be Marquess of
Chartwell." It is to be assumed that he was writing in jest.

In 1955, after Churchill stepped down as PM, the Palace considered offering
him a dukedom. An earldom was the hereditary title PMs would traditionally
expect however it was agreed that Churchill deserved something higher.
Unfortunately, since 1917 the policy of the Royal Household prohibited the
creation of non-royal ducal titles; consequently, the offer to Churchill
could only be made if the Palace was given assurances that he would refuse.
As detailed in *Fringes of Power*, Colville guaranteed that Churchill would
never accept: "First of all what could he be Duke of?", Colville wrote,
"Secondly even if he were Duke of Westerham, what would Randolph be? He
could only be Marquess of Puddleduck Lane which was the only other
possession he had apart from Chartwell. And thirdly, and quite seriously, he
wished to die in the House of Commons as Winston Churchill." [ It should be
noted, however, that this argument is misinformed and carries little weight
as there is no requirement that a peer own the property mentioned in his
title.] The Palace therefore felt confident enough to offer him a dukedom.

A number of people have suggested various possible titles including "Duke of
London" and "Duke of Dover". One of my correspondents once told me: "There
were rumours that it was proposed to create an entirely new degree of
peerage, Consul, that would rank even above Dukes, but this would violate
the commitment to Baronets in 1611 that no additional higher titles would
ever be introduced...." however I have seen no evidence in support of any of
these views.

Despite Colville's assurances, some courtiers worried that Churchill, the
devout and romantic monarchist, might accept the dukedom if for no other
reason than to avoid causing offence to The Queen. Fortunately HM did not
have to face such an embarrassing situation. In a letter to Randolph
Churchill quoted in Fringes of Power Colville wrote: 'Churchill returned
from the Palace with tears in his eyes: "Do you know, the most remarkable
thing she offered me a Duke."' Colville nervously asked what he had said in
response. "Well, you know, I very nearly accepted, I was so moved by her
beauty and her charm and the kindness with which she made this offer, that
for a moment I thought of accepting. But finally I remembered that I must
die as I have always been Winston Churchill. And so I asked her to forgive
my not accepting it. And do you know, it's an odd thing, but she seemed
almost relieved."

When HM unveiled the statue of WSC in Parliament Square she spoke as
follows:

"I thought that when he resigned as Prime Minister, and would no longer play
an active role in party politics, I might honour his wholly exceptional
achievements by offering him a dukedom. No such distinction had been
proposed for nearly a century.

"But he wanted to spend his last years where he had passed almost all his
adult life—the House of Commons—and indeed he had no need for distinction
greater than the name of Winston Churchill."

Sources for Churchill's peerage:

* Colville, John. The Fringes of Power: 10 Downing St. Diaries. 1939-1955.
p.709.

* Gilbert, Martin. Never Despair: Winston Churchill 1945-1965. (Vol VIII of
the Official Biography). p. 1123-1124.

* Gilbert, Martin. Churchill: A Life. p. 939.

* Correspondence between Colville and Randolph Churchill, 8th June 1965.

* Churchill Papers, 1/34

* Correspondence between Dixon and Gilbert, 15th March 1982

* Finest Hour: Journal of the Churchill Centre. 102: Spring 1999.

Regards,

Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
---------------------------------------------
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo

BURKE'S PEERAGE & GENTRY: WORLD ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD & MERIT (edited by Guy
Stair Sainty and Rafal Heydel-Mankoo) has now been published. Published in 2
volumes containing over 2,000 pages and 2,500 full-colour photographs, World
Orders of Knighthood & Merit has been hailed as "a classic...unlikely to be
replaced for at least a century". To view extracts and order your copy
please click here: http://www.wokm.co.uk

_________________________________________________________________
Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile.
https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/

[Anthony Calabrese]

If I recall correctly, the issue of Churchill's peerage was fictionally raised in the novel "First Among Equals" which followed the fortunes of four politicians (two Tories, Two Labour (though one became SDP)) from their first election through to the machinations to decide the premiership in a hung Parliament.  One of the characters, a Tory of modest and non-aristocratic background, decided on a political career when hearing Churchill speak at his college, on the topic "A would rather be a commoner than a lord" (or something to that effect). 

 

---

From: "Rafal Heydel-Mankoo" <raf...@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: Church...@googlegroups.com
To: Church...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Churchill and a peerage
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 11:11:09 +0000

[Mike Campbell]

Toronto blogger Bob Tarantino has a review of "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush " by Barry M. Lando.

 

Bob touches on something discussed here recently,

 

One additional quibble: the choice of subtitle and pictures (Churchill, Kennedy and Bush) which grace the cover is, frankly, bizarre: Kennedy, in particular, is only mentioned twice in the entire book, and Churchill's role is only marginally more material; Dubya doesn't make a significant appearance in the narrative until the last fifty pages or so of the text.  Based on Lando's conclusions, Jacques Chirac, among many others, would have been a more appropriate choice.

 

Publishers know that 'Chirac' doesn't move books off the shelves.

 

Mike Campbell

Halifax, Nova Scotia

www.mikecampbell.net

 

[soldie...@gmail.com]

Apologies for not paying attention to the Subject (there had been some
discussion of the Middle East on this thread).

Mike

On May 17, 11:10 am, "Mike Campbell" <soldiersc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Toronto blogger Bob
> Tarantino<http://bobtarantino.blogs.com/blog/2007/05/bt_review_web_o.html>has
> a review of "
> *Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to
> Kennedy to George W. Bush*" by Barry M. Lando.

[soldie...@gmail.com]

Sorry, I'm wrong on that too! Gmail is confusing me this morning,
more coffee. I won't send any more emails today.

Mike

> > Halifax, Nova Scotiawww.mikecampbell.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -