Nobility in the New World

Can anyone tell me why none of the European states who colonized the New World ever thought about establishing nobility there? Not only the British but the Spanish, French, and Portuguese never seemed to consider it. On the surface it would seem a good idea. You establish a local aristocracy that has a strong interest in defending the crown and noble privileges. There would have been plenty of poor nobles and second and third sons who would have jumped at the chance to gain new estates and titles. Does anyone know if there was a reason this was never considered?
 
The Portuguese monarchy created members of the nobility in Brazil, most of which were colonial descendants of older Fidalgo families from Portugal in 1815 with the creation of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves.
 
Seigneurs? Peninsulares? British proprietary colonies?

There were plenty of aristocrats in the New World.
 
And plantation owners in the South were also aristocrats, since they owned large tracts of land, enjoyed an upper-class lifestyle, and owned people of lower social class.
 
And plantation owners in the South were basically aristocrats, since they owned large tracts of land, enjoyed an upper-class lifestyle, and owned people of lower social class. And some had titles and literally were aristocrats.

I wonder what the effect would have been, though, if plantation 'aristocrats' who had sufficient land and wealth were actually ennobled to become actual aristocrats.
 
I wonder what the effect would have been, though, if plantation 'aristocrats' who had sufficient land and wealth were actually ennobled to become actual aristocrats.

If it happens early enough it could have a major impact on the American Revolution or completely butterfly it away considering how much the plantation aristocracy was involved in the Revolution.
 
Can anyone tell me why none of the European states who colonized the New World ever thought about establishing nobility there? Not only the British but the Spanish, French, and Portuguese never seemed to consider it. On the surface it would seem a good idea. You establish a local aristocracy that has a strong interest in defending the crown and noble privileges. There would have been plenty of poor nobles and second and third sons who would have jumped at the chance to gain new estates and titles. Does anyone know if there was a reason this was never considered?

The Spanish more or less did. In some places, they even co-opted pre-conquest aristocracies, mainly the Incan one. Anyway, nobility titles linked to New World estates and holdings existed, though quite often the titular holders could reside in Spain. It was not always the case, but the Spanish Crown was wary to make large tracts of real estate in the Indies inheritable possession of a given family. Setting up feudalism on the other side of the Pond when you are trying to uproot it at home isn't that sensible, and in generale everybody avoided to go that far.
 
What are you talking about? The spanish did establish nobility. In fact the feudal structure of society is to blame for a lot of Latin Americas biggest problems to this day. And otherwise the French barely cared about their non-caribean colonies to begin with (remember they traded all of Quebec for one island in the end) and England is really the only one that specifically didn't allow there aristocracy to go there, and even then the southern colonies had a landed gentry. The Portuguese had similar ammounts of aristocrats as the spanish did.
 
The plantocrats of the souther British colonies were not aristocrats. By the era the America's were being settled an aristocrat was a titled courtier who lived of the rents of lands that were frequently a long way away from where they lived. The plantocrats were landed gentry, in that the lived on their estate, managed it themselves rather than renting it out and were not titled.
 
I wonder what the effect would have been, though, if plantation 'aristocrats' who had sufficient land and wealth were actually ennobled to become actual aristocrats.

The home-based nobility back home in uproar happens. It would be an insult to the institutional elitism of the class system. The wealthy merchant class may have rapidly surpassed the nobility in wealth but they were content to know that the merchants could still never acquire the same social importance that they had.

First they would make a strongly-worded protest to the king. If that failed they would make it their goal to sabotage the colonies through government interference.

Don't forget the other end of the stick - in Britain at least. Nobles were entitled to a seat in parliament so they would all just buy residences in London and leave their plantations in the hands of overseers, possibly never to return now that elevated status back home had been achieved. If they were denied that place in parliament you could find them being the ones causing the tension in the colonies over representation - though I think full blown rebellion is perhaps too much.
 
The home-based nobility back home in uproar happens. It would be an insult to the institutional elitism of the class system. The wealthy merchant class may have rapidly surpassed the nobility in wealth but they were content to know that the merchants could still never acquire the same social importance that they had.

First they would make a strongly-worded protest to the king. If that failed they would make it their goal to sabotage the colonies through government interference.

Don't forget the other end of the stick - in Britain at least. Nobles were entitled to a seat in parliament so they would all just buy residences in London and leave their plantations in the hands of overseers, possibly never to return now that elevated status back home had been achieved. If they were denied that place in parliament you could find them being the ones causing the tension in the colonies over representation - though I think full blown rebellion is perhaps too much.

Titled nobles, yes. But even then, not all. Baronets and Knights existed within the British system of nobility but neither had any rights to seats. A noble family typically included only the husband with his title as well as his wife as wife as titled aristocrats, and legally their children were commoners. But given most children born the honorific of lord or lady, they were still part of upper class society; eldest sons would eventually become the lord of the manor and the daughters would marry into other families. This rose the issue of second and third sons, though. They may have an inheritance, but legal issues such an entails usually left them both cash and land poor, causing many, at least in England, to seek life abroad in the colony. Many of Virginia's earliest settlers of the great families of that colony were from the gentry and even the aristocracy, being second or third sons. So while not nobles in the "strictest" sense, they still had connections to the nobility in the old country.

Besides -- ennoblements of colonials happened during British rule of the thirteen colonies. It was rare, but it still happened. Given that in the earliest years of settlement through the 17th century connections to Britain were quite strong through family connections, I fail to see how the aristocrats at home would throw a fit. At least in the south, many of these well of gentry are not many generations removed from the landowning gentry and even aristocracy back home. It's not any worse than ennobling a foreigner (which happened as well -- William III ennobled several of his Dutch courtiers; a German general fighting for Britain in Portugal during the War of the Spanish Succession was ennobled too)>
 
Titled nobles, yes. But even then, not all. Baronets and Knights existed within the British system of nobility but neither had any rights to seats.

Baronets and knights are not nobility, they are gentry - at least by this era they are. They were worthy of respect but not deserving to be called the equal of a genuine noble. Any genuine noble - Baron or above - was entitled a seat in The Lords. The idea of a landless noble was a contradiction in terms in this era.

Besides -- ennoblements of colonials happened during British rule of the thirteen colonies. It was rare, but it still happened. Given that in the earliest years of settlement through the 17th century connections to Britain were quite strong through family connections, I fail to see how the aristocrats at home would throw a fit. At least in the south, many of these well of gentry are not many generations removed from the landowning gentry and even aristocracy back home. It's not any worse than ennobling a foreigner (which happened as well -- William III ennobled several of his Dutch courtiers; a German general fighting for Britain in Portugal during the War of the Spanish Succession was ennobled too)>

I'm aware of titles being given to Americans but as far as I can recall, it was always a peerage in Britain and for someone worthy of elevation. Gentry being made nobles happened back in England too, I'm not arguing that, but it was only done for outstanding contributions to the state - or for being close to the royal family, but Kings managed to find a way of arguing that being a close friend was an outstanding contribution. On the other hand, what is being discussed here is the arbitrary elevation of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of men who had contributed no more than to be quite rich and quite probably, being all the way over in America, being quite rich while seeking ways to avoid passing a share of the profits back to the crown. It's this that the lords back home would be furious at. There are ways of creating a native American nobility. Just, not this way.
 
There could be no aristocracy without royal recognition, i.e. the King of Britain was never King of Virginia, so no dukes, earls etc could be created.

Once Victoria had become Empress of India then the Brits could have created a nobility but all the Brits wanted to come home (eventually) and it would not do to give the locals such roles!
 
Baronets and knights are not nobility, they are gentry - at least by this era they are. They were worthy of respect but not deserving to be called the equal of a genuine noble. Any genuine noble - Baron or above - was entitled a seat in The Lords. The idea of a landless noble was a contradiction in terms in this era.

Yes, but gentry and the aristocracy were often quite interconnected in Britain. The gentry were typically second or third sons of those who had titles. They had much in common with the reigning aristocratic classes. Many daughters of the gentry married into low ranking noble families, gentry had (distant) familial connections to larger nobles, ect. They are two separate classes, but very much connected.

I'm aware of titles being given to Americans but as far as I can recall, it was always a peerage in Britain and for someone worthy of elevation. Gentry being made nobles happened back in England too, I'm not arguing that, but it was only done for outstanding contributions to the state - or for being close to the royal family, but Kings managed to find a way of arguing that being a close friend was an outstanding contribution. On the other hand, what is being discussed here is the arbitrary elevation of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of men who had contributed no more than to be quite rich and quite probably, being all the way over in America, being quite rich while seeking ways to avoid passing a share of the profits back to the crown. It's this that the lords back home would be furious at. There are ways of creating a native American nobility. Just, not this way.

Yeah, nothing like that would be possible. There would be no impetus for it, really, and despite Parliamentary uproar, I suspect there would be American suspicion as well. James II's ill-fated 'Dominion of New England' comes to mind that didn't even outlast his deposition. I think any attempt to create an American peerage would be seen by the colonists as an attempt to further dominate the Americas. They preferred their benign neglect to anything else.
 
There could be no aristocracy without royal recognition, i.e. the King of Britain was never King of Virginia, so no dukes, earls etc could be created.

Once Victoria had become Empress of India then the Brits could have created a nobility but all the Brits wanted to come home (eventually) and it would not do to give the locals such roles!

I don't understand why this should be so. I mean, there's no international organisation that creates laws dictating where nobility can and can't be created. There was no organisation which had to call an emergency session to determine whether French Revolution could create a National Assembly or whether Napoleon declaring himself Emperor was acceptable. If a King wants to do something, and his idea isn't totally unacceptable to his subjects, what is stopping him from just doing it? If a King had the insane idea to reverse all the social ranks so that Peasant was the most important title and King was for all the landless farm labourers, what's to stop him from declaring himself Peasant of England? I mean, it's a totally stupid idea but there's nothing practically stopping it from happening.

Besides, you could argue that any territory under the control of Parliament was therefore legally a province of England - which is what people of the time frequently called the Colonies ("the provinces", home to "those provincial colonials/the provincials"). Technically, all but the proprietary colonies were legally subordinate to the Kingdom of England/Great Britain, and therefore part of a Kingdom.
 
There could be no aristocracy without royal recognition, i.e. the King of Britain was never King of Virginia, so no dukes, earls etc could be created.

Yet again, the British Monarch was never King of Egypt, yet the Barons Nelson of the Nile or the Viscounts Montgomery of El Alamein are very much extant.
 
Yet again, the British Monarch was never King of Egypt, yet the Barons Nelson of the Nile or the Viscounts Montgomery of El Alamein are very much extant.

Those were victory titles. The Duke of Waterloo, for instance was a victory title, as were much of his titles. They are titles with no attached piece of land. The Duke of Waterloo was one such, for instance. They usually entailed a land grant or some sort but could stand alone and typically did.
 
Those were victory titles. The Duke of Waterloo, for instance was a victory title, as were much of his titles. They are titles with no attached piece of land. The Duke of Waterloo was one such, for instance. They usually entailed a land grant or some sort but could stand alone and typically did.

Perhaps, if he had survived, Gen. Wolfe could be granted a victory title after the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. This of course could easily include a large estate located near the battlefield. A lordship and land grant to Wolfe could set the precedent for further victory titles during Pontiac's Rebellion. This would probably end during the American Revolution and could end up affecting Canada more than the US. As an added bonus maybe Wolfe's Estate could double as a home for the displaced pro-British Iroquois. The Mohawks of Lord Wolfe's Estate sounds pretty cool.

Ben

P.S. There was always Lord Stirling.
 
Can anyone tell me why none of the European states who colonized the New World ever thought about establishing nobility there? Not only the British but the Spanish, French, and Portuguese never seemed to consider it. On the surface it would seem a good idea. You establish a local aristocracy that has a strong interest in defending the crown and noble privileges. There would have been plenty of poor nobles and second and third sons who would have jumped at the chance to gain new estates and titles. Does anyone know if there was a reason this was never considered?

Switching the focus back south; Peru had a grand duke, 58 marquises, 45 counts, a viscount, as well as knights and hidalgos, by the time independece came knocking at its door.*

It ended up being a loyal bastion till the end; more so than the rest of Spanish South America.

*Jorge Basadre. "La iniciacion de la Republica." (Sorry, but the source is only in Spanish :()
 
Top