Odyssey

[ricky]

With the exception of the Duke of Suffolk (extinct), like the Earl of Bridgemont all seem to be fictitious. I can not even find a town of Haverleigh, the now named Barony. The others are scattered on/or near the  coasts of the England (the two new ). I can find no reason for their being chosen (so far). I can find no reference to lands or on estate that comes with the Dukedom, will he have to build a county residence for himself. Will he take on the heraldic symbols of the prior Duke? Or does he get to create his own and keep his Bridgemont Blue? Not, I guess important questions, but to me interesting ones.

Sounds like a challenge to the artistically inclined to submit their interpretations here don't you think? Any takers?

I can't even do decent stick figures. lol

[sandrewn]

I hope that Peter Chartley makes it back from the Far East, that would go far in making Georges' enforced wait for an exchange bearable.

 

Ok, I'll fess up. The real reason for this post was to see if I change colours, if so, cool, green is my favourite colour. If not I'll just keep posting along in blue, my next favourite colour.

[Westie]

With the exception of the Duke of Suffolk (extinct), like the Earl of Bridgemont all seem to be fictitious. I can not even find a town of Haverleigh, the now named Barony. The others are scattered on/or near the  coasts of the England (the two new ). I can find no reason for their being chosen (so far). I can find no reference to lands or on estate that comes with the Dukedom, will he have to build a county residence for himself. Will he take on the heraldic symbols of the prior Duke? Or does he get to create his own and keep his Bridgemont Blue? Not, I guess important questions, but to me interesting ones.

 

 

Reference to Haverleigh....  well that one is a LITTLE naughty.  The target village today is spelled differently in its modern form... "Hatherleigh".  The spelling was only formalised in 1850 or so.

 

With regards to heraldic symbols, it is very important to note that these relate to your BLOODLINE, not your TITLE.  The heraldic ornaments associated with the family stem not from them being Bridgemonts, but from being Grangers.  With that in mind, the distinctive "bridgemont blue" and other regalia associated with his family will remain, but may be enhanced.  Actually, with the Duke having the garter, his coat of arms will certainly change.

 

The Marquessate of Preston and the Barony of Haverleigh are indeed fictitious.... however that doesn't mean that there wasn't a great deal of thought and reasoning that went into both of them based on some historical rumination

 

Note on the lands and estate that "come with the Dukedom".  I have mentioned this before, but it is worth saying again that in the peerage of England, titles were not linked to land ownership.  And so while they had a territorial designation ("Duke of Suffolk") that didn't actually mean you had any right to lands in in that geography.

 

This is at odds with some places in Europe, where the owner of some land had a title by virtue of ownership.  The same is true of certain types of Laird in Scotland.

 

So no, there is no need for land, estates, residences etc, unless the Duke chooses to put down some roots in those places.

[ricky]

Ok Westie, Can you tell us what elements WOULD be present in the crest or coat of arms? I'm talking things contributed by the story of course. Like you said the garter would be represented, how. And if you were to personify the Granger persona in a coat of arms or crest what symbols would be incorporated into it and why, representing what?

[Westie]

Ok Westie, Can you tell us what elements WOULD be present in the crest or coat of arms? I'm talking things contributed by the story of course. Like you said the garter would be represented, how. And if you were to personify the Granger persona in a coat of arms or crest what symbols would be incorporated into it and why, representing what?

 

This is a BIG question that you are asking here.  And I spent some time wondering how I can answer this best without having to give a seminar on heraldry.

 

Firstly we should consider the name "Granger".  This is an old English name and derives from an occupation, much like "Mercer" or "Smith".  A Granger (or Grainger) was a manorial bailiff, managing the Grains, stores and rents on the farm estates.  I would imagine that a particular "Granger" at one point became rather successful in his role, maybe bought a few freeholds for himself and (in the same way as the Earls Spencer) made money from wool production.

 

In terms of a coat of arms, we certainly know one colour - that's going to be Bridgemont Blue, which I think would be a variation of the Azure or Purpure tincture common in heraldry, although my suspicion is that this would be the background colour appropriated for flags, banners and standards.

 

We know that the shield would have a coronet on top. As an Earl, there would be Eight Pearls and Eight Strawberry leaves (5 only visible in a 2 dimensional drawing though) on the coronet. As a Duke, the coronet would now have just the eight strawberry leaves (no pearls).

 

As a Knight, he would have on his full arms a helmet of armour.

 

As to what is emblazoned on the shield, it would depend on when the arms were commissioned. While armorial bearings go to the Name, they can be changed or amended when new titles come along. So, when the title "Earl of Bridgemont" was created, I would suggest that the arms would have been changed to reflect that and add something of the new title.

 

Certainly then, "Bridgemont" is a classical candidate for "canting", which is a form of Heraldic "pun" or play on words. I would imagine a representation of a bridge between two mountains (literally, the "mount bridge"). It is possible that upon his marriage, the Earl would have also included some form of arms to represent his marriage, and so there may also be an inclusion of lammert yellow as the field on which the mountains rest would be a nice touch.

 

Historical forms of "Granger" arms have included a golden thistle, and so I would suggest Three golden thistles, on a field of Bridgemont blue, to sit below the bridge motif.

 

Overlaying the shild, would be the circlet of the Order of the Garter, bearing the motto "Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense"

 

There would also be the family motto of some kind, but I can't remember if we have been told what the Granger family motto is.

 

As an aristocrat, he would have "supporters" at either side of his shield (often lions, unicorns, dolphins or some other animal). I would imagine the that the Earl would have lions or griffins, in either the pure rampant or the combatant positions.

 

I've tried to make this as simple as possible, but actually there are millions of variations and I don't know enough about Mark's fictional "Granger History" to make anything more than the educated guesses above. This really is an incredibly complex subject, but in terms of the questions previously asked, I think the fair rule to stick to is "blood is thicker than titles".

[ricky]

Thanks so much for this. It IS a fascinating subject and I knew there were complexities in it as everything is a symbol. And it's now opened up a new level of curiosity for research for me. I assume then that George's would be similar to his fathers with a slight variance because of the marriage to Caroline Haversham and his position or lack of position as the case may be. He's not in the order of the garter for example.

 

I suppose that when an aristocrat married that they would hire someone to for designs for approval and they would adopt a crest of their own?

 

And if you ever decide to DO a seminar on all thing heraldic be sure and sign me up. 

 

Thanks so much.

[Westie]

Thanks so much for this. It IS a fascinating subject and I knew there were complexities in it as everything is a symbol. And it's now opened up a new level of curiosity for research for me. I assume then that George's would be similar to his fathers with a slight variance because of the marriage to Caroline Haversham and his position or lack of position as the case may be. He's not in the order of the garter for example.

 

I suppose that when an aristocrat married that they would hire someone to for designs for approval and they would adopt a crest of their own?

 

And if you ever decide to DO a seminar on all thing heraldic be sure and sign me up. 

 

Thanks so much.

George's own arms would be similar to his father, but differenced to show he is a younger son of a Duke, and also to account for his own title and achievements. I think he would keep the Granger thistles and the Bridgemont blue, but also add something from his father in law's crest also.

 

Coat's of arms are issues and approved by the College of arms in London, which is headed by the rather grandly titled "Garter King of Arms". He is one of the lowest paid officers of the state, with a salary of £49 a year.

[ricky]

I seem to remember that there was a signate ring but I'm not sure if it had a description of what was on it. More research!

[ricky]

Now mind you, I'm just getting started. But I think that for George being the third son he'd have a Mullet. And the perfect family motto would be, "Discretus in asino" or do you think that would be too obvious?

[Mark Arbour]

I think George is more likely to have a Bedford crop than a mullet. :-)

[ricky]

I think George is more likely to have a Bedford crop than a mullet. :-)

HA!

ROTFLMAO

 

You know the old saying, a mullet by any other name, wouldn't be so pointy!

Edited February 7, 2014 by ricky

[sandrewn]

Whole grey mullet need the guts, scales and gills removed. Fillets also require pin-boning but (once scaled) the soft skin is usually left intact. Grey mullet has a distinctive, almost earthy flavour that is not universally loved. This earthiness can be reduced by the addition of robust and lightly acidulated sauces, dressings and marinades featuring lemon, white wine vinegar, capers and garlic. Grey mullet roe is a delicacy smoked and is traditionally used in taramasalata. I have tried them, not bad, but the cook did not properly pin bone the one I had and I almost choked on it.

 

Oh, hold on a sec, you weren't referring to an actual mullet were you.

 

Ricky, you (and some others) might find this interesting. These were the four major (sea) battles that Nelson was involved in or with. Two we have experienced to date. Hopefully that will also happen with the those yet to come. Note if you will, how Nelsons' 'Coat of Arms' changes and developes after each victory and elevation.

http://www.whitelionsociety.co.uk/gallery/st-vincent.html

http://www.whitelionsociety.co.uk/gallery/nile.html

http://www.whitelionsociety.co.uk/gallery/copenhagen.html

http://www.whitelionsociety.co.uk/gallery/trafalgar.html

 

Westie, with reference to Preston and Haverleigh, I still haven't been able to find any historical ruminations on either one (so far).

 

Sandrewn

[Mark Arbour]

 

Westie, with reference to Preston and Haverleigh, I still haven't been able to find any historical ruminations on either one (so far).

 

Sandrewn

 

Ah, that's why this is called fiction. 

[Westie]

Westie, with reference to Preston and Haverleigh, I still haven't been able to find any historical ruminations on either one (so far).

Again, it was probably a bit Vague from me there.

 

So, you will notice that when there are Dukes of places, they are Dukes of York, Sussex, Edinburgh, Devonshire, Lancaster,Northumberland and so on. These are BIG places. There has never been a "Duke of Hebden Bridge" (a delightful little village famous for it's Lesbian community - no, I'm not joking).

 

So When you come to make titles for a fictional book, that is nonetheless set within a non-fictional "world", you have a number of things to consider. The first is that a Duke is usually of a very large town or county. The problem with that is that most of the big towns and counties are already taken. And the story being set in an Aristocratic Golden Age, our hero George is more than likely going to meet these Dukes. So you can't create a fictional Duke where there was already a contemporary one.

 

Problem 2 is that if you try and MAKE UP a Dukedom, you need to be sure it wont clash with any other titles. You can't have a Duke of Exeter, because there is a Marquess of Exeter - and the King being in the habit of addressing his courtiers by their title, when he says "ah, good to see you Exeter", you wouldn't know who he meant.

 

So while all the BIG places already have Dukes, if you were to look at all the places NEARLY big enough to get away with it, you undoubtedly find that they already have a Marquess, or an Earl, or a Viscount.

 

So... why not just make him the Duke of Hebden Bridge? Well, apart from the obvious (that you don't want george's father to become the patron of Lesbianism), to give him such a small designation would be tantamount to an insult. So in the end you resurrect an extinct Dukedom because it's the only realistic option.

 

Down to the Marquessate, you find similar issues. Preston itself is quite a ... well, dump, to be honest. In modern times at least. But back in 1799 it was a thriving centre of the industrial revolution. Small towns are suddenly becoming important. Manchester was a village just 200 years previously, and was by this time big enough for a "Duke of Manchester" to be created without insult.

 

Preston was the birthplace of Richard Arkwright, who revolutionised "spinning" of cotton and virtually invented the modern factory concept. Weaving was previously a cottage industry. Preston, much like Liverpool and Manchester, sat on a river and was accessible by sea (Manchester only via the Ship Canal). The town built up a thriving cotton trade with its own transport links. it never became as big as Manchester or Liverpool, but it did become an economic powerhouse of the time.

 

It also attracted a lot of poverty too, and so in 1854, when one Charles Dickens came to stay at the Old Bull public house, it prompted him to write the novel "Hard Times".

 

In 1799, it seemed likely that given their stronger economic power, more and more titles would be linked to these industrial towns. Preston stands out because the Marquessate of Preston was actually offered in 1802, but was turned down by the recipient. Hence why no Marquess of Preston exists today and why it could be used so easily in the story.

 

Haverleigh was slightly different. You need a market town (a few hundred people at most) to attach a Baronage to. Geography plays a huge part here because assuming that the barony was the first title granted, it may have even been where the family originally came from. Those options are largely in the south of England.

 

 

So... that's it. Nothing specific, but a few historic "generalisations" that meant these two places fit fairly well.

[ricky]

Interesting. The number of pearls added doubled, there was the addition of a crown and two helms (I think that's what they are) one is rising out of the Dukal coronet and the other from a wreath. And the banner motto changed from "faith and Works" to "If you got it, flaunt it" (More or less)

 

I'm assuming the second crown rising from the coronet was from a marriage? The other was there prior.

So the basic heraldic format is bloodlines. The flourishes are about achievements or changes that affect that bloodline.

[Mark Arbour]

Again, it was probably a bit Vague from me there.

 

So, you will notice that when there are Dukes of places, they are Dukes of York, Sussex, Edinburgh, Devonshire, Lancaster,Northumberland and so on. These are BIG places. There has never been a "Duke of Hebden Bridge" (a delightful little village famous for it's Lesbian community - no, I'm not joking).

 

So When you come to make titles for a fictional book, that is nonetheless set within a non-fictional "world", you have a number of things to consider. The first is that a Duke is usually of a very large town or county. The problem with that is that most of the big towns and counties are already taken. And the story being set in an Aristocratic Golden Age, our hero George is more than likely going to meet these Dukes. So you can't create a fictional Duke where there was already a contemporary one.

 

Problem 2 is that if you try and MAKE UP a Dukedom, you need to be sure it wont clash with any other titles. You can't have a Duke of Exeter, because there is a Marquess of Exeter - and the King being in the habit of addressing his courtiers by their title, when he says "ah, good to see you Exeter", you wouldn't know who he meant.

 

So while all the BIG places already have Dukes, if you were to look at all the places NEARLY big enough to get away with it, you undoubtedly find that they already have a Marquess, or an Earl, or a Viscount.

 

So... why not just make him the Duke of Hebden Bridge? Well, apart from the obvious (that you don't want george's father to become the patron of Lesbianism), to give him such a small designation would be tantamount to an insult. So in the end you resurrect an extinct Dukedom because it's the only realistic option.

 

Down to the Marquessate, you find similar issues. Preston itself is quite a ... well, dump, to be honest. In modern times at least. But back in 1799 it was a thriving centre of the industrial revolution. Small towns are suddenly becoming important. Manchester was a village just 200 years previously, and was by this time big enough for a "Duke of Manchester" to be created without insult.

 

Preston was the birthplace of Richard Arkwright, who revolutionised "spinning" of cotton and virtually invented the modern factory concept. Weaving was previously a cottage industry. Preston, much like Liverpool and Manchester, sat on a river and was accessible by sea (Manchester only via the Ship Canal). The town built up a thriving cotton trade with its own transport links. it never became as big as Manchester or Liverpool, but it did become an economic powerhouse of the time.

 

It also attracted a lot of poverty too, and so in 1854, when one Charles Dickens came to stay at the Old Bull public house, it prompted him to write the novel "Hard Times".

 

In 1799, it seemed likely that given their stronger economic power, more and more titles would be linked to these industrial towns. Preston stands out because the Marquessate of Preston was actually offered in 1802, but was turned down by the recipient. Hence why no Marquess of Preston exists today and why it could be used so easily in the story.

 

Haverleigh was slightly different. You need a market town (a few hundred people at most) to attach a Baronage to. Geography plays a huge part here because assuming that the barony was the first title granted, it may have even been where the family originally came from. Those options are largely in the south of England.

 

 

So... that's it. Nothing specific, but a few historic "generalisations" that meant these two places fit fairly well.

 

Well that's just excellent, but now I have a question burning in my brain:  Who turned down the marquessate of Preston, and why?

[Graham]

 Well done Mark! Eagerly awaiting your next story in this series -Thank you 

[Daddydavek]

Well that's just excellent, but now I have a question burning in my brain:  Who turned down the marquessate of Preston, and why?

 

Not who, but why?    And could it be because  the name Preston is derived from Old English words meaning "Priest settlement" ?

[JimCarter]

Three days. It was three days. Shortest vacation ever.

 

We all are glad you enjoyed that extended vacation

[Westie]

Well that's just excellent, but now I have a question burning in my brain:  Who turned down the marquessate of Preston, and why?

Sorry for the late reply. I spent much of yesterday at the Tower of London (not on Charges, but a pleasure visit). We saw the crown Jewels for the hundredth time and then we had a meal at the restaurant, and had a wonder around the precinct. We have a "historic royal palaces" membership (hand's up if you're surprised), and it allows us to visit the Tower, Hampton Court, Banquesting House and Kensington Palace free of charge

 

Anyway, onto the subject at hand, refusals are not made public usually. The last one we know about for certain is that Winston Churchill turned down the title of Duke of London. However, there is a reference in the Ffarington Papers, that a member of the Horrocks family was offered the Marquessate of Preston, but turned it down because he had been elected to Parliament and didn't want to give up his seat.

Not who, but why?    And could it be because  the name Preston is derived from [/size]Old English words meaning "Priest settlement" ?[/size]

Preston is indeed from the word meaning "Priest Town". There is a settlement about 5 miles south called "Leyland" and it literally is the "Land of the Leity".

 

Just one of the many geeky things I find interesting

[sandrewn]

However, there is a reference in the Ffarington Papers, that a member of the Horrocks family was offered the Marquessate of Preston, but turned it down because he had been elected to Parliament and didn't want to give up his seat.

 

 

 

So I take it that a peer with a seat in the House of Lords could not also have a seat in Parliament. Cavendish however had a courstesy title and no seat in the House of Lords, thus he could hold a seat in Parliament. I wonder how many courtesy titled Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts or Barons held or stood for seats in Parliament.

 

As only the eldest son (and his eldest son, etc) of a Duke, Marquess or Earl could be given one of his Father's subsidiary titles. I assume  that the staff at Brentwood took to calling George's eldest son, Lord Ryde, due only to their fondness of him and not as a requirement and/or entitlement.

[Westie]

So I take it that a peer with a seat in the House of Lords could not also have a seat in Parliament. Cavendish however had a courstesy title and no seat in the House of Lords, thus he could hold a seat in Parliament. I wonder how many courtesy titled Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts or Barons held or stood for seats in Parliament.

 

As only the eldest son (and his eldest son, etc) of a Duke, Marquess or Earl could be given one of his Father's subsidiary titles. I assume  that the staff at Brentwood took to calling George's eldest son, Lord Ryde, due only to their fondness of him and not as a requirement and/or entitlement.

 

No, the substantive holder of a title could not hold a seat in the House of Commons while holding a seat in the Lords.  A bit like not being a senator while also a congressman.

 

On the titles, there are two things here.  The first is the legal entitlement to use a subsidiary title - this entitlement is absolute and cannot be taken away by anyone.  HOWEVER, at a lower level, such as a Viscount, the rules are governed by family tradition, as opposed to the law of the land.

 

A family was actually free to choose forms of address within certain strict confines, and I believe that "Lord Ryde" would have been one such occasion.  There are actually many examples through history of this happening.

 

Peers could also technically choose their courtesy titles for children in any form.  For example, the Duke of Lennox is also the Duke of Gordon, the Dukedom of Gordon being the most junior, and therefor the "senior subsidiary title".  However the Eldest son uses the Earldom of March instead, because of a family tradition.

[Mark Arbour]

No, the substantive holder of a title could not hold a seat in the House of Commons while holding a seat in the Lords.  A bit like not being a senator while also a congressman.

 

 

This is something I should probably know, but don't.  I'm thinking of modern times, when a man wanted to become Prime Minister, he had to renounce his peerage (like Alec Douglas-Home).  How did that work in Granger's era?  When the Duke of Portland was Prime Minister, did he also sit in on the House of Commons? 

[Westie]

This is something I should probably know, but don't.  I'm thinking of modern times, when a man wanted to become Prime Minister, he had to renounce his peerage (like Alec Douglas-Home).  How did that work in Granger's era?  When the Duke of Portland was Prime Minister, did he also sit in on the House of Commons? 

 

Firstly, it is important to note that there is actually no legal impediment to the head of government being from the house of Lords.  There is similarly, no legal requirement for the Head of Government to be even a member of the house of commons.  But as in all things British, it is not that simple.

 

In Granger's era, the Houses of Parliament were broadly even in their power.  The house of Lords and the House of Commons were equals, both being able to introduce all forms of legislation.  Economically, the power of the nation was in the hands of the aristocracy, and so the reality was the the Lords had the balance of power.  In that respect, the Prime Minister could sit in either house.  He also had to have the confidence of the King, and be able to command a majority in Parliament.  

 

The requirement to command a majority though was more about being able to effectively pass legislation on behalf of the King.  So what we are talking about here is two different roles; the Prime Minister then served an executive sovereign, today he serves a constitutional monarchy.  The King would set broad initiatives and requirements, and the Prime Minister would get what he could through parliament,  He was also Parliament's man in the cabinet, whose job it was to nudge the King away from foolish policy, and to accept the Will of Parliament when it was contrary to his own.

 

As the commons grew more powerful, and more activist, it did become more important to have the confidence of the commons than the Lords.  The Lords also saw themselves as "above" the commons, with a role to guide them, and to clip their more dangerous legislation.  Increasingly the Lords was becoming a house dedicated to the revision of laws proposed by the Commons.  This makes sense because, the commons being more reformist, they flooded the Lords with legislation that it would never have occurred to the aristocracy to raise.

 

An uneasy truce existed right up until 1911, when the house of Lords refused the pass the governments budget (actually, this is a way more complicated subject, so I'm compressing it down).  The Prime Minister at the time introduced the Parliament act, reducing the power of the House of Lords so that they didn't have any authority over "money bills" and could not delay legislation more than 1 year.  The Prime Minister, with a renewed electoral mandate, threatened to create hundreds of new peers if the law did not pass, thus ensuring that it WOULD pass one way or another.

 

So from 1911, the supremacy of the commons was asserted.  By 1923, George V considered that the requirements of the times meant that he had not option but to appoint from the commons.  Similarly, in 1940, Winston Churchill became Prime Minister because Lord Halifax felt that he couldn't accept the job becuase he sat in the House of Lords.

 

By the 1960's, legislation has been introduced to allow a hereditary peer to "disclaim his peerage" for his own lifetime (but his son would inherit the title on death).  Alec Douglas Home did indeed disclaim his peerage in order to return to the commons and become Prime Minister.  After he stepped down, he was swiftly granted a "life peerage" to return him to the Lords.

 

Now however, times have changed again.  Hereditary Peers no longer sit in the House of Lords, and so there is no need to disclaim a title in order to take a seat in the House of Commons.  A Duke, or Earl, or anything else, can stand for Parliament now without any problem.

 

So back to the question, back then, the Duke of Portland could happily exercise the office of First Lord of the Treasury (and thus Prime Minister) from the much comfier red seats in the House of Lords.

[Westie]

IN case anyone is interested, I will point out that FRIDAY is the 217th Anniversary of the Battle of Cape St Vincent.

 

It is also, as a matter of interest, the birthday of one Christopher Latham Sholes, who invented the typewriter.... such invention leading (via the computer keyboard) to Mark WRITING about the battle of Cape St Vincent.

 

 

This history Mini-Digest was brought to you by Westie, and the complete boredom of his current working day.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Westie