Elizabethan peerages

Some people have commented on the sore lack of upper peers recently
created. The now Queen Lilibet II has not created any dukes outside her
immediate family. And she has recently been rather stingy with
earldoms.

Well - it is nothing new or unprecedented!

atsarisborn...

It's a pleasant return to restraint.
What on earth would be the point of creating new hereditary peers when
the ruling class no longer consists of hereditary peers and even the
House of Lords will no longer include them? They're an anachronism and

chornedsnorkack...

What was the point of creating new estate of hereditary baronets when

atsarisborn...

To make money while not upsetting the Lords.

they were not supposed to get in House of Lords, and anyway England was
intended to be ruled by nonhereditary Privy Council, not Parliament?

all the Windsor monarchs have known this.

The previous Elizabeth, Bess I, actually beheaded the entire estate of
Dukes, leaving a lonely marquess the greatest noble in the realm.

atsarisborn...

One person, at the time.

Duke was a semi-royal title. Richard II was generally made fun of for
creating so many (most were reduced in rank by his successor) and for
inventing Marquess and for giving any dukedom to a non-royal. His
successors made no such mistakes. The next king to create more dukes

chornedsnorkack...

Mowbray got Norfolk dukedom back in 1425. Exeter for Holland family,
Buckingham for Stafford, Warwick for Beauchamp... non-royal dukes
stayed around.

atsarisborn...

Mowbray, Holland, Buckingham all went to men with Plantagenet mothers.
The first dukedoms outside the hereditary caste were Dudley's
Northumberland (which he created for himself) and Seymour's Somerset
(ditto), both in the reign of Edward VI.

than could be counted on one hand was Charles II.

Elizabeth did not believe in unnecessary promotion -- it tends to
undervalue the titles. Her whole family felt this way. The Stuarts (a)
needed cash, and (b) needed allies in a civil war, and (c) brought
foreigners to England who needed naturalization papers, as it were. The
dilution is, however, natural to long-established monarchies -- it
happened in France and Spain at roughly the same time.

And peerages are no longer given in those countries for similar
reasons: it wouldn't mean anything any more.

chornedsnorkack...

leaving a lonely marquess the greatest noble in the realm.

(Unlike Lilibet II, she was a stump herself, as she aptly noted, so she

atsarisborn...

"barren stock" not a stump -- which would imply she'd been chopped off.
James I's mother was the stump. So, for that matter, was Elizabeth's.

so she

had no family.) She was likewise stingy with creating lower peerages -
the house of Cecil got only a barony.

atsarisborn...

But a barony meant something then. As it does now.

But note that James I proceeded to grant numerous peerages, including
higher ones. The house of Cecil got a long overdue earldom. James also

atsarisborn...

Two.

James also

restored the extinct estate of dukes. In addition, he founded the

atsarisborn...

Only in Scotland. Norfolk and Somerset remained extinct.

chornedsnorkack...

Buckingham?

atsarisborn...

That had never been a title in the Villiers family before.
They were quite small gentry until that moment.

chornedsnorkack...

Indeed. And thereby the estate of dukes was restored.

Buckingham seems to be the first Duke with no royal ancestry to be
created by an adult king, then. Somerset was rather overtly
self-created by then Lord Protector... who was a nuncle of the King in
female line. What exactly was Northumberland when he became Duke?

Reed...

Both Buckingham and his future wife had royal ancestry; as did
Northumberland
and Somerset.

In addition, he founded the

estate of baronets - and sold baronetcies at an explicit, fixed price
to all takers.

So, a notable fact about Elizabeth I-s peerage policy is that
eventually, it was reversed.

atsarisborn...

No. An entirely new policy with degraded peerages was invented.

chornedsnorkack...

Was the policy of James I completely unprecedented?

As you pointed out, Richard II also created peerages.

atsarisborn...

For the same reason: knowing himself unpopular, to increase public
support.
Also it was a cheap gift.

As did Edward III. He publicly announced that England was short of the
numbers, and ranks, of nobles. From William the Conqueror to Edward
III, the number of Earls had stayed under ten, except during Anarchy.
Edward III made earls more numerous, and founded the estate of dukes.

atsarisborn...

Only for two of his sons and one Plantagenet cousin (whose heiress was
married to Edward's favorite son). He created dukedoms for his sons
because John of France had done this (it had never before been done in
France either), and he felt he should be able to do anything John did.

chornedsnorkack...

This applies to dukes. What about earls?

Whereupon the Scots imitated HIM and the Castilians imitated France,
and the Aragonese and Portuguese imitated the Castilians, and the
Italians got into it, and a degradation of the title of Duke occurred
all around.

Jean Coeur de Lapin

Reed...

A list of peerage creations and promotions was drawn up which would
have nearly
doubled the size of the peerage at one time. This appears to be
something many
overlook when dscussing the peerage policy of Elizabeth I. Nothing
came of the plan;
however. The biography of Cecil by Reade and the biography of William
Brooke, 10th
Lord Cobham provide excellent details and references for the plan.

Turenne...

Didn't Richard II create the Dukedom of Ireland for Robert de Vere?

Richard Lichten

Can this precedent imply that the peerage policy of Elizabeth II might,
and ought to, be reversed?

atsarisborn...

No. Once again the entire system of government has changed. Hereditary
peers no longer have anything to do with it.

Jean Coeur de Lapin

"A metaphor is when you say one thing and mean something else, but
you're not lying." -- Gutenberg! The Musical!

(Gary Holtzman) garyholtzman...

But the key difference is that Elizabeth I was, to borrow a phrase from another
contemporary head of state, "the Decider" when it came to granting peerages.
The present Elizabeth is not, except one supposes in the case of her family.
The granting of peerages outside of her family is entirely up to the government
of the day, and could be reversed in the present reign in the exceedingly
unlikely event that a differently-minded prime minister were to come to power.