It’s crazy, right? But I split it up so much so that if a section — in particular that one — just began getting too much, you could skip and the next bit would still make sense
"If you wanted to be a commissioned officer, you had to literally buy the commission off the last guy who held it."
To be picky: You literally bought it from the army, and sold it back when you resigned. If you were dishonourably discharged, they took it back without compensation. So practically, you were not so much buying a rank as issuing a bond for good behaviour.
IIRC from The Wooden World, the thing about the navy's patronage system was that recommending someone for promotion tied you together - if your recommendee did well, your star would rise, along with that of those you recommended or who recommended you. But if he did badly, then you all suffered together. So there was a lot to be said for acting as a talent scout, but it was best not to tie yourself to anyone who might do badly.
Fair enough, this was poorly worded. Though from what I've read, it is how it was often referred to at the time (that you'd bought your commission 'off someone).
And on the navy, yes absolutely. I mentioned this elsewhere: I wasn't trying to say that the navy didn't care about talent. Merely show why gentlemen dominated the gunroom despite no formal legal requirements banning non-gentlemen from the position.
Awesome article. I’m an American, but I got so hooked on Gilbert & Sullivan operas that I felt the need to research the British peerage and aristocracy systems in order to better understand the society G&S were satirizing. It’s a lot to learn about, but when you get the hang of it, it makes operas like Iolanthe and Ruddigore so much funnier.
On your comment that on the Continent (those people isolated from England by the English Channel),
nobility could not be renounced, contemporary reports suggest this was not always the case.
One 18th century author of Picaresque novels (Laurence Sterne or Tobias Smollett?) tells of a French aristocrat who fell on hard times. Since aristocrats were not permitted gainful employment he renounced his peerage, depositing his sword at the court of Versailles. After many years of working he had acquired a sufficient competence to retire. At that point he returned to Court and reclaimed his sword, and his noble status.
I believe that the point of the anecdote was that in England peer-pressure (pun intended) would prevent this. The only option would be to flee to the Continent (or the Colonies).
Interesting, I hadn’t heard of that story. Though I’d want to delve a little deeper into what was technically being renounced. ‘Peerage’ in France referred to a very exclusive group (mostly of dukes, princes, and bishops) who ranked above the vast majority of the nobility. There was also that important social distinction between the old sword nobility and the newer robe nobility, some of whom got their nobility from their jobs.
So, was he giving up his nobility in its entirety? Or merely the trappings of his sword noble heritage or perhaps a peerage title he held on top of his nobility? Either way, an interesting case.
An excellent and very thorough account, thanks for this! I’m American, but a significant family line came from County Durham. Apparently, Durham was a County Palatine, meaning that its ruler owed only nominal allegiance to the monarch, but otherwise was entitled to a fair amount of autonomy. And then I learned that the ruler of County Durham was a hereditary Prince-Bishop. Now this might be a very naive question, but I’ve always wondered how there could be hereditary bishops of any kind, given that bishops were presumably bound to celibacy. Perhaps the line of Prince-Bishops arose after the English Reformation, after which time clergy were free to marry? Any thoughts or information on this would be appreciated!
Thanks! I'm not sure where you heard that the Bishop of Durham was a hereditary office, but to the best of my knowledge it never has been. But yes, it was a palatinate with the bishop retaining some of those powers even into the 19th century.
Thank you so much! I checked Wikipedia, under various articles such as County Palatinate of Durham, Prince Bishop, and Bishops of Durham, and the title Prince-Bishop is nowhere used. They state simply that the Bishop of Durham was head of the County Palatine. However, the Durham Castle and Cathedral site does use that title, but I think it makes it plain that the title is only an honorific attached to the Bishop, because of his temporal authority:
I visited the Cathedral in 2015, but the castle was off-limits because it serves as the main campus of the University of Durham, and the students were all preparing for final exams.
A slight quibble: the word “prince” is used throughout the sixteenth century, and not just for the Prince of Wales, but not really as a title. It’s most commonly used to refer to the monarch in the abstract. Akin to how we’d nowadays say “the sovereign” or even “the Crown”. Eg you often see in the various letters and proposals in the State Papers things like “the Prince will be benefited in his customs by this dodgy scheme for boosting trade for which I’f like a patent, please and thank you”
Yes, 'prince' was a generic term for sovereign, hence the title of Machiavelli's book. My point was intended to be that it didn't refer to the sons of the king, which is how the word is usually used today.
Actually, the Baron Pawlett of Basing was accidentally created by writ of summons in 1717.
It was to be a writ of acceleration, which was when an heir apparent was summoned to Parliament under one of his father's (or grandfather's) subsidiary titles, almost always the barony.
But Charles Paulet, Marquess of Winchester (courtesy title), should have been summoned as Baron St John of Basing. Someone blundered. Hence, Baron Pawlett of Basing.
Excellent and interesting article! I have recently written about a research paper analyzing the system of naval patronage. While you are certainly not entirely wrong in that the Navy must have been an old boys club, officers also had a huge incentive to back juniors that would perform. The data show that the system worked remarkably well. Just wanted to add that as an additional dimension, again, great article. Thanks for sharing it!
Absolutely, and I didn’t intend to leave the impression that patronage and familial connections were the only things that mattered, merely explain why almost all officers were gentlemen despite no formal requirements to that effect
I think you did a fine job! Fascinating stuff. It’s easy for modern day Americans to dismiss this aristocratic mumbo-jumbo as archaic bullshit, but it still governs British affairs to this day. Do you credit current claims that Britain is the seat of Globalist power concentrated in the British aristocracy?
But is it true that most of these wealthy peers were originally sea pirates or something like that, where the accumulated their wealth before acquiring nobility?
My brain exploded partway through the section about addressing nobility. Fascinating stuff, though.
It’s crazy, right? But I split it up so much so that if a section — in particular that one — just began getting too much, you could skip and the next bit would still make sense
"If you wanted to be a commissioned officer, you had to literally buy the commission off the last guy who held it."
To be picky: You literally bought it from the army, and sold it back when you resigned. If you were dishonourably discharged, they took it back without compensation. So practically, you were not so much buying a rank as issuing a bond for good behaviour.
IIRC from The Wooden World, the thing about the navy's patronage system was that recommending someone for promotion tied you together - if your recommendee did well, your star would rise, along with that of those you recommended or who recommended you. But if he did badly, then you all suffered together. So there was a lot to be said for acting as a talent scout, but it was best not to tie yourself to anyone who might do badly.
Commissions were bought and sold across the Channel, too.
Fair enough, this was poorly worded. Though from what I've read, it is how it was often referred to at the time (that you'd bought your commission 'off someone).
And on the navy, yes absolutely. I mentioned this elsewhere: I wasn't trying to say that the navy didn't care about talent. Merely show why gentlemen dominated the gunroom despite no formal legal requirements banning non-gentlemen from the position.
Awesome article. I’m an American, but I got so hooked on Gilbert & Sullivan operas that I felt the need to research the British peerage and aristocracy systems in order to better understand the society G&S were satirizing. It’s a lot to learn about, but when you get the hang of it, it makes operas like Iolanthe and Ruddigore so much funnier.
On your comment that on the Continent (those people isolated from England by the English Channel),
nobility could not be renounced, contemporary reports suggest this was not always the case.
One 18th century author of Picaresque novels (Laurence Sterne or Tobias Smollett?) tells of a French aristocrat who fell on hard times. Since aristocrats were not permitted gainful employment he renounced his peerage, depositing his sword at the court of Versailles. After many years of working he had acquired a sufficient competence to retire. At that point he returned to Court and reclaimed his sword, and his noble status.
I believe that the point of the anecdote was that in England peer-pressure (pun intended) would prevent this. The only option would be to flee to the Continent (or the Colonies).
Interesting, I hadn’t heard of that story. Though I’d want to delve a little deeper into what was technically being renounced. ‘Peerage’ in France referred to a very exclusive group (mostly of dukes, princes, and bishops) who ranked above the vast majority of the nobility. There was also that important social distinction between the old sword nobility and the newer robe nobility, some of whom got their nobility from their jobs.
So, was he giving up his nobility in its entirety? Or merely the trappings of his sword noble heritage or perhaps a peerage title he held on top of his nobility? Either way, an interesting case.
An excellent and very thorough account, thanks for this! I’m American, but a significant family line came from County Durham. Apparently, Durham was a County Palatine, meaning that its ruler owed only nominal allegiance to the monarch, but otherwise was entitled to a fair amount of autonomy. And then I learned that the ruler of County Durham was a hereditary Prince-Bishop. Now this might be a very naive question, but I’ve always wondered how there could be hereditary bishops of any kind, given that bishops were presumably bound to celibacy. Perhaps the line of Prince-Bishops arose after the English Reformation, after which time clergy were free to marry? Any thoughts or information on this would be appreciated!
Thanks! I'm not sure where you heard that the Bishop of Durham was a hereditary office, but to the best of my knowledge it never has been. But yes, it was a palatinate with the bishop retaining some of those powers even into the 19th century.
Thank you so much! I checked Wikipedia, under various articles such as County Palatinate of Durham, Prince Bishop, and Bishops of Durham, and the title Prince-Bishop is nowhere used. They state simply that the Bishop of Durham was head of the County Palatine. However, the Durham Castle and Cathedral site does use that title, but I think it makes it plain that the title is only an honorific attached to the Bishop, because of his temporal authority:
https://www.durhamworldheritagesite.com/learn/history/prince-bishops
I visited the Cathedral in 2015, but the castle was off-limits because it serves as the main campus of the University of Durham, and the students were all preparing for final exams.
A slight quibble: the word “prince” is used throughout the sixteenth century, and not just for the Prince of Wales, but not really as a title. It’s most commonly used to refer to the monarch in the abstract. Akin to how we’d nowadays say “the sovereign” or even “the Crown”. Eg you often see in the various letters and proposals in the State Papers things like “the Prince will be benefited in his customs by this dodgy scheme for boosting trade for which I’f like a patent, please and thank you”
Yes, 'prince' was a generic term for sovereign, hence the title of Machiavelli's book. My point was intended to be that it didn't refer to the sons of the king, which is how the word is usually used today.
Yes, as I say, just a slight quibble!
*clears throat*
Actually, the Baron Pawlett of Basing was accidentally created by writ of summons in 1717.
It was to be a writ of acceleration, which was when an heir apparent was summoned to Parliament under one of his father's (or grandfather's) subsidiary titles, almost always the barony.
But Charles Paulet, Marquess of Winchester (courtesy title), should have been summoned as Baron St John of Basing. Someone blundered. Hence, Baron Pawlett of Basing.
Excellent and interesting article! I have recently written about a research paper analyzing the system of naval patronage. While you are certainly not entirely wrong in that the Navy must have been an old boys club, officers also had a huge incentive to back juniors that would perform. The data show that the system worked remarkably well. Just wanted to add that as an additional dimension, again, great article. Thanks for sharing it!
Absolutely, and I didn’t intend to leave the impression that patronage and familial connections were the only things that mattered, merely explain why almost all officers were gentlemen despite no formal requirements to that effect
I think you did a fine job! Fascinating stuff. It’s easy for modern day Americans to dismiss this aristocratic mumbo-jumbo as archaic bullshit, but it still governs British affairs to this day. Do you credit current claims that Britain is the seat of Globalist power concentrated in the British aristocracy?
Explains a lot.
But is it true that most of these wealthy peers were originally sea pirates or something like that, where the accumulated their wealth before acquiring nobility?