Being granted a peerage

[Richard Alexander]

Good afternoon!

I was recently re-reading an old Aubrey/Maturin novel by Patrick
O'Brian, and in it, an individual, or, should we say, an admiral, was
notified that the King was going to bestow a peerage upon him.

This made me curious. How exactly were the concerned individuals
informed that they were going to be elevated to the peerage? I'm
mostly interested in how this practice was executed in the 19th
century.

In the novel, the admiral in question received an eloquent letter
written by someone who isn't mentioned.

Were there some sort of uniformity in how these letters were
structured? Did it refer to the King in third person, or written as if
by the King himself? And were any particular phrases usually
involved?

i.e. "His Majesty the King has been [graciously] pleased to" etc.?

I suppose the letters would also ask the receiver what title he wished
to use (?).

Now, I'm not sure if this topic fits within Peerage News, but this is
the only talk group I know of which deals with peerage matters and is
frequented by experts on the subject.

Perhaps the Complete Peerage contains the answers to my question?

R.A.

[marquess]

My understanding is that, one is notified by the Lord Lyon or Garter
King of Arms, and the matter is gazetted, then the patent is drawn up
and passes the great seal, that was at least the case for hereditary
peers, life, I know naught of them.

[Richard Alexander]

Who cares about life peers?!

Life peers ruined the peerage!

[Richard Alexander]

Thanks for the answer, by the way!

On Aug 28, 6:37 pm, marquess <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[Richard Alexander]

Say, would a baronet or knight be contacted in the same way by the
same person?

[Turenne]

Probably. It's important to know whether the honour is going to be
accepted or not. Plenty of people have refused honours. Some have
refused them because they thought that the honour wasn't high enough!

Richard L

[Michael Rhodes]

On 28 Aug, 19:13, Richard Alexander <ox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Say, would a baronet or knight be contacted in the same way by the
> same person?
>

I think that in modern times a letter lands on the doormat
from No. Downing Street saying that ones name has been
recommended to HM The Q for a honour.

See

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page8127

[marquess]

Here here to that Richard!

On 28 Aug, 04:47, Richard Alexander <ox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Who cares about life peers?!
>

> Life peers ruined the peerage! I remember talking to David Williamson, who said that people had refused baronetcies because they thought that they were too low. I know that one of the Rothermeres refused a life peerage, saying that he should have an hereditary one like his uncle! Good on him! I think that one would be better off being made a knight than a mere life baron. Become an emanient UK citizen of such great standing that you are internationally recognised and then immigrate to Belgium or Spain and get a decent title. I recall that there was talk about twenty years ago in the Evening Standard, of Mrs Thatcher making the late von Thyseen a duke, if he allowed his vast picture collection to go to Britain. I thought personally that it was idle speculation. A pity that the Lansdowne's refused a dukedom twice, there is an interesting Punch cartoon on the subject, that praised him for refusing to be the Duke of Kerry, and Elgin refused a marquisate, as the Derby's in the 1840's refused a dukedom. So it can go the other way round too.

[Richard Alexander]

I remember reading your suggestion about getting rid of life peerages
and making hereditary peerages non-political. Like in Belgium.

I can only say that I wholly agree with your sentiments.

[marquess]

I remember talking to David Williamson, who said that people had
refused baronetcies because they thought that they were too low. I
know that one of the Rothermeres refused a life peerage, saying that
he should have an hereditary one like his uncle! Good on him! I think
that one would be better off being made a knight than a mere life
baron. Become an emanient UK citizen of such great standing that you
are internationally recognised and then immigrate to Belgium or Spain
and get a decent title. I recall that there was talk about twenty
years ago in the Evening Standard, of Mrs Thatcher making the late von
Thyseen a duke, if he allowed his vast picture collection to go to
Britain. I thought personally that it was idle speculation. A pity
that the Lansdowne's refused a dukedom twice, there is an interesting
Punch cartoon on the subject, that praised him for refusing to be the
Duke of Kerry, and Elgin refused a marquisate, as the Derby's in the
1840's refused a dukedom. So it can go the other way round too.

[Michael Rhodes]

On 29 Aug, 11:45, marquess <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

(.....SNIP)

A pity
> that the Lansdowne's refused a dukedom twice, there is an interesting
> Punch cartoon on the subject, that praised him for refusing to be the
> Duke of Kerry, and Elgin refused a marquisate, as the Derby's in the
> 1840's refused a dukedom. So it can go the other way round too.
>
> On 28 Aug, 14:37, marquess <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here here to that Richard!
>
> > On 28 Aug, 04:47, Richard Alexander <ox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Who cares about life peers?!
>
> > > Life peers ruined the peerage! I remember talking to David Williamson, who said that people had refused baronetcies because they thought that they were too low. I know that one of the Rothermeres refused a life peerage, saying that he should have an hereditary one like his uncle! Good on him! I think that one would be better off being made a knight than a mere life baron. Become an emanient UK citizen of such great standing that you are internationally recognised and then immigrate to Belgium or Spain and get a decent title. I recall that there was talk about  twenty years ago in the Evening Standard, of Mrs Thatcher making the late von Thyseen a duke, if he  allowed his vast picture collection to go to Britain. I thought personally that it was idle speculation. A pity that the Lansdowne's refused a dukedom twice, there is an interesting Punch cartoon on the subject, that praised him for refusing to be the Duke of Kerry, and Elgin refused a marquisate, as the Derby's in the 1840's refused a dukedom. So it can go the other way round too.

The 6th Earl of Harewood declined George V's offer of a promotion to
Marquess in 1922 on his marriage to the King's daughter.

==

[Turenne]

Michael Rhodes wrote:
>
> The 6th Earl of Harewood declined George V's offer of a promotion to
> Marquess in 1922 on his marriage to the King's daughter.
>

It is well known that Winston Churchill declined a dukedom (London,
Chartwell, Dover?), but what is less well known is that Lord Salisbury
twice refused a dukedom (in 1886 and 1892) because of the tremendous
cost of maintaining the dignity.

Sarah Churchill was at first reluctant for her husband to accept a
dukedom until Queen Anne and Parliament offered to provide them with a
suitable abode (Blenheim).

Richard L

[Michael Rhodes]

See:-

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=434

By the time Churchill resigned on 4 April 1955, it had been determined
that no further dukedoms would be offered except to Royal personages.
Yet WSC was different from other Prime Ministers and an exception was
considered. The Palace asked Colville if they could offer a dukedom,
confident that Churchill would refuse it. Colville took some
soundings. Churchill told him that he would never accept: "First of
all what could he be Duke of?" Colville reported. "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."

The oddest thing then happened. On April 5th the PM donned his frock
coat and top hat for his Audience, and Colville, knowing he was
hopelessly in love with The Queen, feared that despite all WSC’s
assurances he might accept out of his affection for her!

Churchill returned from the Palace with tears in his eyes: ‘Do you
know, the most remarkable thing—she offered me a Duke." With
trepidation Jock asked what he had replied. "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."

[Turenne]

Michael Rhodes wrote:

>"First of
> all what could he be Duke of?" Colville reported. "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."

Churchill made a couple of other sarcastic references to his choice of
territorial designation:

Churchill acquired 120-acre Bardogs Farm (1947), adjacent to
Chartwell Farm. In a letter to his barrister, Leslie Graham-Dixon,
discussing a possible dukedom, WSC wrote

"Duke of Bardogs would sound well, and Randolph could be Marquess of
Chartwell."

Earlier, George VI had offered WSC the Order of the Garter, to which
he famously replied (but not to the King): "I could hardly accept His
Majesty’s offer of the Garter when his people have given me the Order
of the Boot."

When Colville suggested Churchill should go to The Lords; Churchill
said: "I should have to be the Duke of Chartwell, and Randolph would
be the Marquess of Toodledo."

Richard Lichten