Winston Churchill, Duke of Marlborough

Winston Churchill was descended from John Spencer-Churchill, 7th Duke of Marlborough. His father Randolph was the 7th Duke's second son. His uncle George was the 8th Duke, and his first cousin Charles was the 8th Duke's only son. Charles succeeded as the 9th Duke in 1892.

Charles was unmarried, so his heir presumptive was his uncle Randolph, and after Randolph's death in 1895, his cousin Winston.

Charles married American heiress Consuelo Vanderbilt in 1895; their first son was born in 1897 and their second son in 1898. (Consuelo called them "The heir and the spare".)

Thus for two years, Winston was heir presumptive to the Dukedom. If Charles had not begotten a son, he would remain heir presumptive, and would have succeeded as Duke when Charles died (1934 in OTL, aged 63).

This poses many possible WIs.

  • Charles dies young, and Winston succeeds in the 1890s. This would largely abort his political career. After 1900, the action was in the Commons; peers still had a role to play, but it diminished rapidly.
  • Winston remains the heir presumptive through the 1900s and into the 1930s. How does this influence his political career?
  • Winston succeds in the 1930s, which would take him from Commons and somewhat disqualify him from Prime Minister.
  • Charles lives until 1941 or so, and Winston becomes Duke while PM. How does that affect his leadership of Britain, his relations with FDR, his image in the U.S.? The first duke was a great general, and I could see the linkage being a positive; but the heavy aristocratic associations would hurt, too.
Note: Churchill's personal recklessness (serving on the Western Front of WW I, playing polo into his 40s) probably is not constrained by this. His younger brother John is available to inherit the title, and after 1911 Winston's son Randolph.
 
Last edited:
Winston Churchill was descended from John Spencer-Churchill, 7th Duke of Marlborough. His father Randolph was the 7th Duke's second son. His uncle George was the 8th Duke, and his first cousin Charles was the 8th Duke's only son. Charles succeeded as the 9th Duke in 1892.

Charles was unmarried, so his heir presumptive was his uncle Randolph, and after Randolph's death in 1895, his cousin Winston.

Charles married American heiress Consuelo Vanderbilt in 1895; their first son was born in 1897 and their second son in 1898. (Consuelo called them "The heir and the spare".)

Thus for two years, Winston was heir presumptive to the Dukedom. If Charles had not begotten a son, he would remain heir presumptive, and would have succeeded as Duke when Charles died (1934 in OTL, aged 63).

This poses many possible WIs.

  • Charles dies young, and Winston succeeds in the 1890s. This would largely abort his political career. After 1900, the action was in the Commons; peers still had a role to play, but it diminished rapidly.
  • Winston remains the heir presumptive through the 1900s and into the 1930s. How does this influence his political career?
  • Winston succeds in the 1930s, which would take him from Commons and somewhat disqualify him from Prime Minister.
  • Charles lives until 1941 or so, and
  • Winston becomes Duke while PM. How does that affect his leadership of Britain, his relations with FDR, his image in the U.S.? The first duke was a great general, and I could see the linkage being a positive; but the heavy aristocratic associations would hurt, too.
Note: Churchill's personal recklessness (serving on the Western Front of WW I, playing polo into his 40s) probably is not constrained by this. His younger brother John is available to inherit the title, and after 1911 Winston's son Randolph.

Even after 1911 a Peer being Prime Minister was still theoretically possible, it almost happened in 1940 with Lord Halifax.
So even if he is a Duke he can still inhabit Number 10.
 
Winston Churchill was the only Conservative Prime Minister to be a member of a trade union. If he had also become Duke of Marlborough would have also have been the only duke to have been a member of a trade union?
 
Even after 1911 a Peer being Prime Minister was still theoretically possible, it almost happened in 1940 with Lord Halifax.
So even if he is a Duke he can still inhabit Number 10.
It actually happened with Baron Home in 1963, though in that case he resigned his baronetcy to stand for election.
 
It actually happened with Baron Home in 1963, though in that case he resigned his baronetcy to stand for election.

1) Alec Douglas-Home was Earl of Home, not 'Baron Home'. He was made Baron Home of the Hirsel after his Premiership

2) I don't think Home ever had a Baronetcy, and even if he did, he would not have needed to disclaim it because a Baronetcy is just a hereditary knighthood, not a peerage. A Barony is a type of peerage, though.

3) Home disclaimed his peerage due to the Peerage Act 1963. Before that, Churchill would not have been able to disclaim his title to sit in the Commons.
 
1) Alec Douglas-Home was Earl of Home, not 'Baron Home'. He was made Baron Home of the Hirsel after his Premiership

2) I don't think Home ever had a Baronetcy, and even if he did, he would not have needed to disclaim it because a Baronetcy is just a hereditary knighthood, not a peerage. A Barony is a type of peerage, though.
Doh! That's what happens when you do ten seconds of fact checking. The central point, that he was a peer when he became Prime Minister, stands though. The disclaimation of the peerage and election to the Commons wasn't constitutionally required.
 
Even after 1911 a Peer being Prime Minister was still theoretically possible, it almost happened in 1940 with Lord Halifax.
So even if he is a Duke he can still inhabit Number 10.

Possible, yes. In 1924, Curzon expected to become Prime Minister - he was shocked when Baldwin got it instead. And Halifax was a real possibility in 1940.

But... after 1900, Commons was where the action was. In 1905, Asquith, Haldane, and Grey tried to make their leader, Campbell-Bannerman, take a peerage and leave the Commons, with the intent of making him a "dummy prime minister".

Also, fighting an election could be important to a rising British politician's image. It was where he addressed the public and came under scrutiny. A peer would miss all that. If Churchill succeed in the 1890s, he would never get the chance to build himself up in that way.
 
Neville Chamberlain openly wanted Lord Halifax, also known as Edward Wood, to succeed him in No. 10 when it became apparent that his position there was untenable. As I recall there is a story of a meeting which took place between the three, in which Chamberlain, trying to sound casual, asked Churchill if he thought there was anything especially wrong with the idea of a Peer as Prime Minister in 1940.

His intent was almost certainly to leave Churchill with two possible answers.

1). "No." In this case, Chamberlain would likely have said that he would be happy to recommend Lord Halifax to His Majesty upon his own resignation.

2). "Yes." In this case, very likely, Chamberlain would have chided Churchill on his obvious self-service, and attacked him for it in the Commons to harm his prospects.

In the event, Churchill took the surprise third option. He stood up, walked to the window, and said not a word in response.

Back to the question, it likely depends on when it happens. I think the OP is right that if Winston Churchill became Lord Marlborough in 1890, his chances of getting the Premiership shrink dramatically, though it is still possible.
 
He wouldn't be Lord Marlborough. One of the oddities of the British peerage is while Viscount X, Earl of X or Marquess of X can be shorted to Lord X Dukedoms are never never shortened that way. He would be known as the Duke of Marlborough or maybe Marlborough or some other nickname very informally among social equals.
 
As I recall there is a story of a meeting which took place between the three, in which Chamberlain, trying to sound casual, asked Churchill if he thought there was anything especially wrong with the idea of a Peer as Prime Minister in 1940.

I believe John Coville said that during the third episode (France Falls) of The World At War. Coville was private secretary to both Chamberlain and Churchill.
 
He wouldn't be Lord Marlborough. One of the oddities of the British peerage is while Viscount X, Earl of X or Marquess of X can be shorted to Lord X Dukedoms are never never shortened that way. He would be known as the Duke of Marlborough or maybe Marlborough or some other nickname very informally among social equals.

Further confused by "Lord" being used as a courtesy title for some, but not necessarily all, of the children of members of the Peerage.
 
More precisely:
Winston would be Duke of Marlborough. Clementine would be Duchess of Marlborough.

The oldest son of an Earl, Marquess, or Duke uses one of his father's lesser titles as a "courtesy title". Therefore Randolph would be Marquess of Blandford, and Winston II (when he was born) would be Earl of Sunderland, and when Randolph II was born (if Winston lived long enough) he would be Lord Spencer.

The daughters of an Earl, Marquess, or Duke use "Lady" before their names, so you'd have Lady Diana Spencer Churchill, Lady Sarah Spencer Churchill, Lady Marigold Spencer Churchill, and Lady Mary Spencer Churchill. If their marriages were the same, Sarah would become Lady Sarah Tuchet-Jesson, Lady Audley, and Mary would become Lady Mary Soames, Lady Soames.
 
He wouldn't be Lord Marlborough. One of the oddities of the British peerage is while Viscount X, Earl of X or Marquess of X can be shorted to Lord X Dukedoms are never never shortened that way. He would be known as the Duke of Marlborough or maybe Marlborough or some other nickname very informally among social equals.

So he would be Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, 10th Duke Marlborough.
 
So he would be Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, 10th Duke Marlborough.
Duke of Marlborough.

He almost certainly wouldn't be PM because the days of Peer-PMs were basically over by the 1890s, let alone the 1940s. But he could rise to a very senior rank in the Army if he stayed in it after the Boer War. Or he could be a Government Minister ITTL.
 
Duke of Marlborough.

He almost certainly wouldn't be PM because the days of Peer-PMs were basically over by the 1890s, let alone the 1940s. But he could rise to a very senior rank in the Army if he stayed in it after the Boer War. Or he could be a Government Minister ITTL.

Out of curiosity, what is the highest government post you see him occupying in such a timeline?
 
Out of curiosity, what is the highest government post you see him occupying in such a timeline?
Minister for War would be an obvious one during WWII (assuming few butterflies) and he would probably make a decent Foreign Secretary, as long as the civil service did most of the actual work associated with the position. The Home Office isn't his style, and he couldn't be Chancellor if he had a Peerage. That's in addition to more junior roles like the Admiralty, the Colonies or maybe the Board of Trade as he ascends the rungs of the ladder.
 
He almost certainly wouldn't be PM because the days of Peer-PMs were basically over by the 1890s, let alone the 1940s...

Umm. The Marquess of Salisbury was PM from 1886 to 1892 and 1895 to 1902; the Earl of Rosebery was PM from 1894 to 1895. The only commoner PM in the 1890s was Gladstone in 1892 to 1894.

In the 1900s, Balfour was PM from 1902 to 1905. When the Liberals came in then, Grey, Asquith, and Haldane tried to force their leader and the prospective PM, Campbell-Bannerman, to accept a peerage and sit in the House of Lords instead of Commons, though still as PM. ("CB" refused.)
 
Umm. The Marquess of Salisbury was PM from 1886 to 1892 and 1895 to 1902; the Earl of Rosebery was PM from 1894 to 1895. The only commoner PM in the 1890s was Gladstone in 1892 to 1894.

In the 1900s, Balfour was PM from 1902 to 1905. When the Liberals came in then, Grey, Asquith, and Haldane tried to force their leader and the prospective PM, Campbell-Bannerman, to accept a peerage and sit in the House of Lords instead of Commons, though still as PM. ("CB" refused.)
Salisbury was an exception to the rule, and came after Gladstone and Disraeli, who demonstrated that leading from the Commons put the PM in a far stronger position than they would have been in, sitting with the Vegetables. Post-Boer War, he was very much a placeholder. Same thing with the CB proposal - and CB knew this, which was why he refused, together with the idea that if he did lead from the Lords, he wouldn't lead for very long (even disregarding his health issues). Both Curzon and Halifax would have been perfectly fine PMs, but were barred from the position due to being barred from the green benches.
 
Top