#house of lords and commons | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

blackswaneuroparedux · 1 year

Text

Anonymous asked: I have always wondered why Winston Churchill never received a proper noble title by the time he died. Ex-Prime Ministers such as Harold Macmillan was made an earl and Margaret Thatcher was made a baroness so why wasn’t Churchill recognised for his heroic leadership and political service during the Second World War?

As you might imagine the answer isn’t as straight forward as you might suppose. In truth Sir Winston Churchill was recognised for shepherding the country and the British Empire through the darkest hours of war. His place in history is assured and for someone who always had an eye on the arc of history Churchill, I imagine, died happily enough knowing his achievements were enshrined in the nation’s long history.

Churchill was offered the title of the Duke of Dover as well as Knight of the Garter by George VI, a monarch who at the outset preferred Chamberlain to Churchill but in time came to deeply appreciate Churchill’s qualities as a war leader. Churchill, much to the King’s surprise, declined the offer of a dukedom and also membership of the Order of the Garter, saying that it would be inappropriate given that the electorate had just given him the Order of the Boot - he had just lost the 1945 General Election to Labour’s Clement Attlee.

Later in 1955, after retiring as prime minister, Churchill was again offered elevation to the peerage in the rank of duke by Queen Elizabeth II as the Duke of London (apparently). He again declined. But Churchill did accept in 1953 from Queen Elizabeth II the Order of the Garter. The Queen appointed him the 912th Knight of the Garter on April 24, 1953. He had already been made a Companion of Honour and a member of the Order of Merit. The Order of the Garter is the most senior and the oldest British Order of Chivalry and was founded by Edward III in 1348. The Order, consisting of the King and twenty-five knights, honours those who have held public office, who have contributed in a particular way to national life or who have served the Sovereign personally.

So why did he turn down being a duke because after all past prime ministers retiring from the House of Commons were offered earldoms and other titled baubles?

A few reasons have been put forward by historians and his biographers. It isn’t because Churchill didn’t think it was a special honour, because he recognised its importance. His reasons seemed more practical.

For one thing being offered a dukedom meant also the expectation that you lived the lifestyle of a duke. It goes without saying the lifestyle of a duke, back then, was an expensive undertaking. In the 1940s and 1950s a duke was expected to be rich, to have at least two stately homes plus a large house in London, and to live on his estates and play a part in local affairs. Being a JP, raising funds for local charities, showing up for school openings and the like. It’s all very Downton Abbey-esque. Certainly the social expectations pre-1945 of the British aristocracy well established.

My grandfather was told by his grandfather of how his childhood friend from school, Lord Lansdowne, a great-grandson of Prime Minister Lord Shelburne and a marquess with two stately homes, was offered a dukedom after being viceroy of India; but Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, the 5th Marquess of Landsdowne, refused because his income was not large enough. In fact being a duke was no fun at all, despite what people then and especially now think.

At the outset of the 1870s, the British aristocracy could rightly consider themselves the most fortunate people on earth: they held the lion's share of land, wealth, and power in the world's greatest empire. By the end of the 1930s they had lost not only a generation of sons in the First World War, but also much of their prosperity, prestige, and political significance. This loss was accentuated in slow motion speed into the 1950s and beyond. Other countries such as Russia, Germany or Austria can pinpoint a single event to the demise of their landed nobility (revolution or war), but in Britain it has been quintessentially different. Britain was unique in that the displacement of the British aristocracy occurred without revolutionary overthrow. It was in fact a bloodless revolution.

The assembled Dukes in 2010: (from left to right) 1. James Graham, 8th Duke of Montrose; 2. David Manners, 11th Duke of Rutland; 3. John Seymour, 19th Duke of Somerset; 4. Ralph Percy, 12th Duke of Northumberland; 5. Andrew Russell, 15th Duke of Bedford; 6. Edward Fizalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk; 7. Torquhil Campbell, 18th Duke of Argyll; 8. Maurice FitzGerald, 9th Duke of Leinster; 9. Murray Beauclerk, 14th Duke of St Albans; 10. Arthur Wellesey, 8th Duke of Wellington.

The sobering scholarship of the Cambridge historian, Sir David Cannadine has pointed to mainly three principal reasons for the decline of the aristocracy in British public life. Firstly, land reform (especially in Ireland). The unearned income of the landlord became increasingly the target, especially in Ireland, of new political movements. and the huge sales of land in the 1920s to meet taxes and death duties. - crippled the aristocracy in Britain. This was combined with a lengthy agricultural depression that began at roughly the same time. Indeed it began when the price of wheat dropped during the 1880s. The gradual increase of tonnage being shipped because of steam, allowed large quantiles of arable produce to enter Europe from the US and elsewhere, reducing prices. The British refused to slam tariffs on imports, because the new electorate enfranchised in 1885 were townies and liked the lower food prices in the shops.

Secondly, the mass killings in France and Belgium in World War One that claimed a generation of British lives of young men. The aristocracy volunteered for the British armed forces in droves because they were dispirited by their losing social and economic struggle at home, and preferred to fight a battle they thought they could win. In actuality, the aristocratic ethos carried with it many obligations, one of which was that an aristocrat not shirk from fighting his country's battles. The deeply ingrained sense of honour nurtured by the British upper class was one of its most admirable characteristics, and the sons (and sometimes fathers) of the upper class who headed for the front lines simply were acting in accordance with their sense of honour. The result was a casualty rate far in excess of any other social group in the country.

Thirdly, hand in hand with all this was the whirlwinds of social change taking place such as the rise of the middle class into the professions seen as the traditional strongholds of the aristocracy. The professionalisation of traditional occupations such as the civil service, church, military, politics, or law meant the educated middle classes could compete, and frequently excel, an aristocracy now resting on past laurels. The aristocracy couldn’t complain as they just grew fat and lazy whilst the more risk taking and ambitious middle classes had a greater hunger to succeed. More damning was the fact that the aristocracy lost touch with their societal roots of duty and obligation and were rightly found to not represent the populace with the extension of the electoral franchise.

These days dukes have adapted to the winds of change. Some have followed Dukes of Bedford in 1945 and later the infamous Marquess of Bath to open their stately homes, Woburn Abbey and Longleat respectively, as theme parks cum tourist attractions. They were much criticised at the time. Alexander Montagu, 10th Duke of Manchester, sold off his two stately homes in the early 1950s and lost much of his status doing so - in the 1600s, his heir might have been prevented from assuming his title and seat in the Lords because of insufficient wealth. This happened to Roger Stafford, heir of that medieval Stafford family, over whom Henry Montagu, the 1st Duke of Manchester, presided a royal commission to see if poverty disqualified his claim to the barony of Stafford.

As interesting as this discussion is, I find myself straying from the question at hand.

Back to Churchill. I am of the view that the main reason why Churchill turned down a dukedom was that he knew that accepting a peerage might have cut short a renewed career in the Commons for his son Randolph and in due course might also prevent one for his grandson Winston. At the time there was no procedure for disclaiming a title. Indeed the procedure was first established only later by the Peerage Act 1963. As things stood then in Churchill’s time, upon inheriting a peerage, either Randolph or Winston would immediately be unseated from the House of Commons.

In the event, Randolph never sat in Parliament after losing his only seat there in 1945 and indeed was to die only three years after his father, so the dukedom would have had no effect on his career. Randolph's oldest son Winston did serve in the Commons from 1970 until 1997, but by that time provision existed for disclaiming a hereditary peerage, as long-serving far left Labour MP Tony Benn - born Anthony Wedgwood Benn, son of Labour Party peer, Viscount Stansgate - had done in 1963 upon the passing of the Peerage Act.

It also can be argued that Churchill had no need of a dukedom when he was already an aristocrat - or at least born into one. His father was Lord Randolph Churchill and direct descendant, of the famed 1st Duke of Marlborough. Winston was born in 1874 at his family’s ancestral home of Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire. Whilst Churchill was an aristocrat, he didn’t really have much time for them, nor was he particularly enamoured by that class. Why that was the case, I would be happy to address in a future post. But for it’s enough to say that Sir Winston S. Churchill remained a commoner until he died.

Although it was considered usual for prime ministers to be offered earldoms, recent prime ministers have declined to accept peerages - the last to do so was Margaret Thatcher, who was made a baroness. Interestingly enough, Harold Macmillan was offered an Earldom immediately when he retired but rejected it, in retirement he later made many political interventions and criticised his successors, when Thatcher became Prime Minister he requested a peerage and was given the title Earl of Stockton, he used his new seat in the Lords to criticise Thatcher's handling of the coal miners' strike, so he pretty much used his new peerage as a way to have a platform from which to oppose Thatcher.

But with fewer peerages being created the political climate has changed where it’s rare that an outgoing prime minister is even offered any kind of title, let alone a peerage. These days a lot of that is down the the public image of the outgoing prime minister and it seems a lot of water has to pass under the bridge before someone can be considered for any kind of honour. John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, and even Boris Johnson (let’s not even talk about Liz Truss) have to wait for the political climate to change any kind of recognition.

John Major turned down a peerage (or so it was reported) but accepted a knighthood in 2005 from the Queen when he was made Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, the oldest and most senior British order of chivalry. Tony Blair, who left Downing Street more than 15 years ago, recently followed in the footsteps of Major in 2021 when he too was knighted and made a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.

Appointments to the Garter are in the Queen’s gift and made without prime ministerial advice. They are for life unless a knight or lady companion offends against certain “points of reproach”.

Founded in 1348 by Edward III, the garter is awarded by the sovereign for outstanding public service and achievement. It is said to have been inspired by events at a ball in northern France, attended by the king and Joan, Countess of Salisbury. The countess is believed to have dropped her garter, causing laughter and some embarrassment. The king, however, picked it up and wore it on his own leg, uttering the phrase “Honi soit qui mal y pense” – “Shame on him who thinks this evil” - now the order’s motto. The order’s emblem is a blue ribbon or garter worn by men below the left knee and by women on the left arm. There are now 21 non-royal companions in the order out of a maximum of 24.

Gordon Brown and David Cameron will have to wait their turn. Heaven knows what will happen when Liz Truss’ time comes. Perhaps we can have some piecemeal reform whereby by all means bestow a title on said politician but the public decides on the place name.

I look forward to hearing more from Lord Cameron of Pratt Bottom, Lord Brown of Great Snoring, Lady May of Crapstone, Lord Johnson of Bonks Hill, and Lady Truss of Twatt on great issues of the day in our public discourse.

Thanks for your question.

#question #ask #peerage #winston churchill #aristocracy #house of commons #knighthood #house of lords #politics #queen #monarchy #order of the garter #nobility #prime minister

56 notes · View notes