WI: Hereditary Peers in the Colonies

I did some searching and found no threads on this subject.

I was wondering what would the effects of hereditary peers in Canada, Australia, New Zealand...etc

How would it affect these countries during independence, would there be a house of lords in these countries instead of a Senate, how would this affect the selection of a Governor General in these countries?

Is this even possible?

Sorry if this has been asked already.
 
I did some searching and found no threads on this subject.

I was wondering what would the effects of hereditary peers in Canada, Australia, New Zealand...etc

How would it affect these countries during independence, would there be a house of lords in these countries instead of a Senate, how would this affect the selection of a Governor General in these countries?

Is this even possible?

Sorry if this has been asked already.
Yes, it is rather interesting. Partly, of course, the colonies attracted farmers, small merchants, and the like, and didn't mostly have gentry, who are most likely to be raised to Baronial and higher status. And those that DID receive that elevation got British peerages, not colonial ones.

OTOH, if Canada were bigger and more important, you'd see more of that happening. See my sig for my TL. There we've only got a few actual peers created in a Canadian setting, but the Viceroy/GG can grant simple knighthoods without permission from London, and can recommend baronages.

I've got the upper houses being houses 'of Notables' (there not being enough Lords), but heading that way. It's not a major point of the TL, but it is happening.

I think that OTL in Canada at least, some of the backlash against the Honours system was that it was, and was perceived as, British, even English. If Canadians are awarded Canadian honours in Canada earlier, it would help the survival of the institution. (So e.g. my Dad would be Sir Stuart, not just having an OC after his name:))

I suspect that such an 'aristocracy' would be much like the modern British system - no real power, just prestige.
 
IIRC by the time of the ARW only one native born American had been raised to the Peerage.
The Baron of Boston was Knighted for His role in the capture of Fort Louisbough during the 1745 war.

However I could see several others [Like George Washington, et al] being Knighted for actions during the French & Indian War.
 
Sir Walter Raleigh's attempted colonisation of America in 1585 had a mandate to rule the territory conquered as a semi-feudal province. He had the mandate to sell lordships with his land, a lot of his investors were mid-ranking aristocracy and gentry who wanted to be absentee landlords, and he was also - perhaps crucially - tasked with converting the natives into vassal rulers, which his colonists actually managed to do to one major chieftain and his own vassals before abandoning the area.

If the British Empire got off in this way, perhaps we have the basis for this idea?

More of a POD/idea than speculation, sorry.
 
Sir Walter Raleigh's attempted colonisation of America in 1585 had a mandate to rule the territory conquered as a semi-feudal province. He had the mandate to sell lordships with his land, a lot of his investors were mid-ranking aristocracy and gentry who wanted to be absentee landlords, and he was also - perhaps crucially - tasked with converting the natives into vassal rulers, which his colonists actually managed to do to one major chieftain and his own vassals before abandoning
Whilst not quite peers there were a number of colonies founded under the proprietary system in whilst the colony was controlled by an individual by charter. The founders could and did at least in the case of David Kirke and Newfoundland recruit colonists and issue their own coinage.

Had the system been more successful a nucleus of peers could assembled from the charter owners. They certainly would have had no truck with any republican ideals.
 
the Dutch in their colonisation had the system of Patroonship, which had the same rights as Feudal Lords, this lasted untill the English abolished Patroonship in 1775, turning them into estates which didn't have the rights a Patroon had
 
Thanks of all of the replies everybody. :)

I just wondered if any peers could be created in Canada and such. Maybe Victoria could create some in Canada.

I also thought it would be interesting to have a house of Lords in Canada instead of a Senate. The idea of an earl of Ottawa or a Duke of Quebec very much interests me. I image it would also be very interesting in the other Commonwealth countries. What effect would these have if they happened in these countries?

Would this heavily effect the politics of these countries, or the selection of Governor Generals?

I also wonder if eventually that a hypothetical house of lords in these countries they might include the local native chiefs.

Sorry if this sound completely stupid but I don't know a lot on the subject.
 
Well, in Canada, after the American Revolution, people who had supported the British and were displaced by the war were allowed to add the letters UEL, or United Empire Loyalist after their name. This title was also a hereditary one, but its not used outside of academic circles. If some prominent Loyalist was made, say Duke of Montreal, then yeah, I think you see a Canadian peerage develope.
 
Thanks of all of the replies everybody. :)

I just wondered if any peers could be created in Canada and such. Maybe Victoria could create some in Canada.

I also thought it would be interesting to have a house of Lords in Canada instead of a Senate. The idea of an earl of Ottawa or a Duke of Quebec very much interests me. I image it would also be very interesting in the other Commonwealth countries. What effect would these have if they happened in these countries?

Would this heavily effect the politics of these countries, or the selection of Governor Generals?

I also wonder if eventually that a hypothetical house of lords in these countries they might include the local native chiefs.

Sorry if this sound completely stupid but I don't know a lot on the subject.
If the war of 1812 had gone better for the British, and if the Indians (in particular Tecumseh's confederation) had done better, then Tecumseh could easily have been given a baronage. Of course, the concept of hereditary leadership inheritance rules are quite different between the relevant Indian tribes and the Brits, and the most important leaders (Joseph Brant and Tecumseh) were hereditary leaders, anyway!

But, yes, in such a situation, I could see the Brits e.g. recognizing the paramount leader of 1) the 6 Nations and 2) Tecumseh's confederacy as a 'prince', even.

As for the Senate being a House of Lords - there weren't enough Lords (Barons and higher) around, and I doubt that the Brits would be interested in creating the rank inflation that would be needed to make enough.

If they went with a House of Nobles (say) and initially let in everyone who was a knight, gradually raising the bar to baronets and then barons (by, oh, say 1900), that, too might be possible. But it would be a bit tricky. Especially since you didn't have even that many knights around early on...


In a situation where the Indians are more effective (which would involve the Brits keeping the Lakes open so they could be fed), you could quite possibly get, say, a dozen or so 'barons' and a couple of 'earls' or 'princes' (e.g. one baron for each of the Six Nations, an earl/prince for the lot together). THe biggest problem is where would they get the whites to counterbalance them, because no way are they going to let the upper house be controlled by Indians (First Nations/Natives/aboriginals/...)

I have Prevost in the aftermath of a much better 1812 being made Viceroy (as an office), and given the rank of Marquis (personally), with the Viceroy being able to create simple knighthoods on his own, but not anything higher. That is, IMO, well within possibility, given the situation in the TL. How you do much more than that, I'm not sure.
 
This is (was) perfectly practical. New Zealand has had several peers, as has (I think) Australia. They were peers of Great Britain of course, not even Scots have new peers of their own peerage any more.

And of course there is the (still flourishing) baronetcy of Nova Scotia.

I have sometimes pondered on the effect if (say) Chas II, probably the only king in the relevant time period with enough smarts, had seen the necessity of more closely connecting the plantations and the United Kingdom.

The beauty of it is, that unlike the colonies sending members to Parliament (as has often been suggested), no approval is needed by parliament. The King can make a peer of whomever he chooses, and summon any or all of them wherever he chooses. No need to stir up problems with the lower house.
 
Last edited:
Top