Financial ramifications of peerages created since the 19th century

Question

I once (quite naively) thought that those who were awarded titles of nobility in olden times would henceforth life charmed lives in their splendid houses, etc.: until I noticed e.g. in several biographies of British statesmen of the 19th and 20th centuries that financial wealth may (at least by that time and in that country) have been a prerequisite for rather than a consequence of noble titles.

If I remember correctly, friends of Benjamin Disraeli (made 1st Earl of Beaconsfield) had to contribute to a fund so he could fulfill the prerequisites for accepting a relatively minor title. Both Lord Salisbury (3rd Marquess of Salisbury) and Winston Churchill (made Sir Winston Churchill) were offered dukedoms by their grateful Queen and King respectively, but both declined evidently for reasons of cost.

I'm not sure whether the latter two where coy for other reasons, but the cost of maintaining the lifestyle esp. of a Duke (who is perhaps reasonably expected to maintain a grand country estate as well as a residence in the capital) must indeed have been and remain huge. Some of the old peerages were created together with sufficient territorial designations or other significant resources to bear this cost, but maybe by the 19th century there was not enough "white space" left (conceivably so in the case of the Dukedom of London that was offered to Churchill; perhaps not so in the case of Dukedoms created for the House of Windsor since 1890; theoretically not so in the case of the Eardom of Kandahar in Afghanistan) and there were now rich industrialists around who presumably did not mind the expense, if they only got the title.

So I am wondering what were the exact financial ramifications of becoming a member of the aristocracy (esp. the higher aristocracy, in the UK, and by the 19th century). For instance, were there set rules as to the funds that candidates would have to have acquired (next to the merit, of course :) and for mandatory representation, and could titles be lost e.g. if money ran out?

Answer 1

Firstly, I think you may be getting a little confused between life peers and hereditary peers.

Life peers are given a peerage or title for their lifetime only. It is not hereditary and it cannot be handed down to their children. When that person dies, the peerage or title dies with them. They are not expected to maintain a country estate or multiple houses, nor are they necessarily expected to be wealthy.

The cost you refer to I believe is probably constituted from an honour fee paid, for the priviledge of becoming a peer which probably covers the administrative charges, charge for the warrant and possibly also the fee for a coat of arms or heraldry from the College of Heralds. In addition to that would also be the cost of regalia when needed and worn on public occasions.

The cost of all that added up could well constitute a considerable sum of money.

Hereditary peers are in a similar position but the initial cost of being made one will already have been paid and their main concern is the upkeep of the family seat or family home which would have been passed down to them through the generations. Many peers have found that these old country homes and castles are simply so expensive to maintain they've had to sell them to English Heritage, who maintain them but open them to the public. Some have had to sell them to private individuals simply because they have insufficient funds to maintain them.

Just because a country seat has been sold, does not mean a hereditary peerage or titles goes with it. It does not, it remains with the peer until death and is then inherited by their son or sometimes daughter.