Michael
Jun 2nd 2009, 11:30 PM
The British Aristocracy
I was reading a short history of the 'modern' British aristocracy a few weeks ago - primarily about the nobility (or peerage) specifically - not the gentry. I just thought I'd share a few interesting factoids and perhaps spur some discussion upon the topic. :)
Please note that these estimates are my rough calculations based on the information given in the book about numbers. The author does not list this information in any handy chart-like format or listing.
1. The majority of all existing titles granted and a large majority of all title holders have attained this rank after 1700 (this would include the present Royal Family). It appears that about half are in fact post 1800 grants. That is to say, only a small minority of the British peerage hold their rank from grants predating the reign of William and Mary. Or one could say that a majority of British peers have entered the peerage under the modern constitutional form of the British monarchy and not before.
2. As of the mid-1980s, there was only about 800 family lines that held hereditary titles, or roughly 1500 persons holding titles if you include all the various 'courtesy' titles. This doesn't count the gentry/squirarchy.
3. Apart from the Royals, there are about two dozen Dukes, three dozen Marquesses, 173 Earldoms, 110 Viscounts and 438 Barons under the British peerage system (mid-1980s data) - which includes the Scottish but not the Irish peers.
4. There are only a very few (existing) noble families that can trace their title grant prior to the 13th century (less than twenty Earls and Barons) when such title-grants actually had significance to national security.
5. No new grant of hereditary title has been made since 1964.
I consider point number one to be most significant because it shows that these titles are NOT actual living leftovers from the feudal-medieval era. These are, in the majority of cases, modern 'class privileges' bestowed upon the recipients, usually for commerical, industrial or political services.
Now I've always been a defender of the principle of constitutional monarchy, but I must say that I'm very glad to see that the British government has foresworn itself not to create any more hereditary peers. It is an anachronism. I'm willing to respect one who holds such rank by direct descent of one who held that rank during the feudal-medieval era, as in one who wore armor, raised troops and fought with the king in battle, but to toss around these titles to mere millionaires of commerce or industry just seems silly in our modern egalitarian age.
As for the contemporary custom of life-peerages and the various orders of honor, I see nothing to object to. It seems like a sensible way to recognize good public service without the granting of undue benefits to generations down the road.
Anyone have any thoughts or comments on the topic?
I was reading a short history of the 'modern' British aristocracy a few weeks ago - primarily about the nobility (or peerage) specifically - not the gentry. I just thought I'd share a few interesting factoids and perhaps spur some discussion upon the topic. :)
Please note that these estimates are my rough calculations based on the information given in the book about numbers. The author does not list this information in any handy chart-like format or listing.
1. The majority of all existing titles granted and a large majority of all title holders have attained this rank after 1700 (this would include the present Royal Family). It appears that about half are in fact post 1800 grants. That is to say, only a small minority of the British peerage hold their rank from grants predating the reign of William and Mary. Or one could say that a majority of British peers have entered the peerage under the modern constitutional form of the British monarchy and not before.
2. As of the mid-1980s, there was only about 800 family lines that held hereditary titles, or roughly 1500 persons holding titles if you include all the various 'courtesy' titles. This doesn't count the gentry/squirarchy.
3. Apart from the Royals, there are about two dozen Dukes, three dozen Marquesses, 173 Earldoms, 110 Viscounts and 438 Barons under the British peerage system (mid-1980s data) - which includes the Scottish but not the Irish peers.
4. There are only a very few (existing) noble families that can trace their title grant prior to the 13th century (less than twenty Earls and Barons) when such title-grants actually had significance to national security.
5. No new grant of hereditary title has been made since 1964.
I consider point number one to be most significant because it shows that these titles are NOT actual living leftovers from the feudal-medieval era. These are, in the majority of cases, modern 'class privileges' bestowed upon the recipients, usually for commerical, industrial or political services.
Now I've always been a defender of the principle of constitutional monarchy, but I must say that I'm very glad to see that the British government has foresworn itself not to create any more hereditary peers. It is an anachronism. I'm willing to respect one who holds such rank by direct descent of one who held that rank during the feudal-medieval era, as in one who wore armor, raised troops and fought with the king in battle, but to toss around these titles to mere millionaires of commerce or industry just seems silly in our modern egalitarian age.
As for the contemporary custom of life-peerages and the various orders of honor, I see nothing to object to. It seems like a sensible way to recognize good public service without the granting of undue benefits to generations down the road.
Anyone have any thoughts or comments on the topic?