American Aristocracy?

I've wondered for a while now... Why was no landed aristocracy created in the English colonies?

Why were none created from the start?

The south was mainly descended from the nobility of South-West England who fled during the Puritan Republic, but why did the not keep/ create titles?

Also, what could happen if you do get landed aristocracy in the colonies, most specifically the South?

I've had an idea floating around in my head for a while now, in no means a thought out one, but and idea. If the Puritan Republic of England survives, and colonialism stops or slows, what happens to the colonies? Could the aristocracy flee to the South setting up the Kingdom of Virginia*, and the Puritan New England become, The Puritan Republic of New England**, closely allied with PRE? Would this mean that the Dutch Colonies survive? Is that even remotely possible?

*-Just and idea for a name. I have no idea what it could actually be.
**-Again, just a name off the top of my head.
 

tuareg109

Banned
Remember that, if you don't include indentured servants and laborers, all the Puritan men who journeyed from England to found colonies were on a more-or-less equal footing. A king needs an income from the land, and only makes decisions and lives in splendor; how is that distinction made when every single person, man woman and child, is needed to toil in the fields, in order to eke out a living?

From the start, the English colonies in the Americas were very democratic for this very reason. Even the most intelligent and respected man can't be viewed as much better than his peers, when he too rolls up his sleeves at the beginning of the day and is caked in sweat and dirt by the end.

By the time a generation or two passed and the descendants of those initial colonists became the wealthy landowners that they were, this equality and tradition of public service to too ingrained to tear out; yes, they viewed "new money" and new colonists as encroaching on their rights and privileges, but they abhorred the idea of one man lording it over the rest of them--which explains why British support in the colonies during the revolutionary war was mostly among urban professionals (like doctors, lawyers, etc.) and not old-family landowners or traders or farmers or laborers.
 
In Mexico noble titles are still populaire amongst the wealthy elite. Just have the British monarchs give titles away to wealty settlers who "earned" for the service of the empire or what ever. You need to romanticize titles and you will have Aristocrates just like in Mexico.
 
Mostly the colonies were set up as for-profit ventures by corporations; shareholders are equals and company officers are employees, not lords. While it eventually transitioned away from that model, the colonies begin on a fairly egalitarian basis, which becomes harder to shake out as time goes on. In fact, only two colonial charters (New York and Carolina) didn't specifically forbid titles. The colonial charters left very little room for the concept of nobility in many cases - the process for electing judges was spelled out, and did not require titles. The government was in the hands of shareholders. What does an American noble DO when the functions of government are clearly delineated and do not involve him in any particular capacity? To compound the matter, access to colonies depends on ships, which are themselves in the hands of either the Crown itself or private trading companies; a title is meaningless if survival depends on the decisions of untitled people with little reason to consider the needs of the aristocrats. The British are less attached to meaningless titles than some other nations.

Add in the fact that no aristocrat relocates to the freakin' edge of the wilderness by choice (far more cavaliers went to France than Virginia), and a colonial title remains a joke in poor taste until the 18th century, and not a terribly interesting or desirable thing after that.

You have, I think, a very narrow window to get titles in the British colonies; the early Hanovers have to seize on a residency requirement for titles, then create people they find annoying Earl of Manhattan etc as a polite way to exile them. And New York and the Carolinas are the only place the crown can do that (without revoking and reissuing a charter, and that always goes so well for the crown...).

tl;dr the colonies were established by the money interest, which has no reason to give the landed aristocracy a share in power, and forcing it to do so looks like a bad job if it's possible at all.
 
Option one - titles of nobility connected to the diverse proprietros of American colonies. The Calverts, Barons Baltimore (Peerage of Ireland) and Dukes of Maryland. The Moncks, Hydes, Cravens etc, Marchesses of [Placename] in Carolina. The Berkeleys of Virginia.

Option two - something like the Baronetage of Novy Scotia gains taction in other colonies. Since baronets are hereditary but not peers, their are not represented in the House of Lords. As commoners, not nobility, a class of baronets would fit in better with the other colonists.
 
Wait, there isn't already an Aristocracy in America? /s

Not the medieval way, no.

What of when the colonies became royal colonies? Rather than a Royal Governor you have the King giving wealthy colonists and unlanded family member titles, and they are direct vassals to him. Not much changes in the way colonies are run, except each one is split down even further than before. Like it could work Duke of Charles Town, Royal Colony of South Carolina. And even under him you could get Earls and barons, etc. Duke of Charles Town may not be the best example but you get the idea.

Maybe you could get some unique thing with a POD at the foundation of the colonies, where plantation owners get land surrounding their plantation, forming a sort of Barony thing. It would be hard to get, but fairly interesting if it happened.
 

Jasen777

Donor
There was pretty much de facto aristocracies in some colonies. Such as significant property requirements to serve in the legislatures (some districts would have no one that qualified and would be "virtually represented" by someone living elsewhere). One could argue about how much people who owned/had slaves and indentured servants resemble aristocrats.

In of course there was the manor system in large parts of New York, which was very feudalistic.
 
The southern Gentry effectively was an American Aristocracy.

Yeah, that's where the idea stems from. They had all the acting of Nobility down, but they weren't. We just need to make them actual nobility.

Lots of plantation owners were the descendants of nobility, so if they would press their "god given right to rule others" then there we go.

But how do we get that to happen.

Also, I'm primarily focusing on the south here. I see how far fetched it seems to have Puritans and other dissenters be ruled by the aristocracy they fled from. The south was Anglican though. they weren't running for religious freedom, just to make more money.
 
Top