Why Isn’t Mr. Darcy a Lord?
Diane Morris | Thursday, September 10th, 2015 | Jane Austen, Mr. Darcy, Pride and Prejudice | 10 Comments
The most frequently asked question that brings visitors to my blog is this: Why isn’t Mr. Darcy a Lord? In Jane Austen’s popular novel Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy is a gentleman and a Derbyshire landowner with a beautiful estate (Pemberley). He has a handsome annual income of £10,000—an income worthy of a duke or earl. It seems like he ought to be a Lord and, yet, he isn’t. Why isn’t Mr. Darcy titled Fitzwilliam Darcy, 1st Baron Darcy or 1st Viscount Ashbourne or some such? My previous research showed that because he is not a peer, Mr. Darcy would have been classified as gentry, which made him a second-class citizen, along with baronets and knights, in England’s 1811 census. Why, with all his land and income, is he not Lord Darcy?
House of Lords, 1809 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
A Peer Is a Titled Noble
The United Kingdom peerage is a system of nobility that stretches back more than 1,000 years. Peers were summoned to Parliament, thus forming the House of Lords. Eventually it happened that once a peer was summoned to Parliament, he would be summoned for the rest of his life, and his son would in turn be summoned. In this way the hereditary peer became established. The peerage consists of five ranks, with Duke ranking the highest, followed by Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron. The corresponding female ranks are Duchess, Marchioness, Countess, Viscountess and Baroness. (Baronets and knights are not peers.)
A Noble Title Recognizes Service
A peerage dignity is created for a man (or occasionally a woman) in recognition of service to the Crown or country.1 For example, in Mr. Darcy’s day Richard Pepper Arden (1744-1804) was a British barrister and politician. In May 1801 he was appointed Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas; that same month he was created Baron Alvanley of Alvanley in the County of Chester.
Charles Grey, 1st Earl Grey (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Charles Grey (1729-1807) was a British general who served in the Seven Years’ War, the American War of Independence and the French Revolutionary War. He returned to England in 1794, retired from military life in 1799 and was elevated to the peerage as Baron Grey of Howick in the County of Northumberland. In 1806 he was created Earl Grey and Viscount Howick.
Sir John Mitford (1748-1830) was an English lawyer, politician, Speaker of the House of Commons in 1801 and 1802 and Lord Chancellor of Ireland between 1802 and 1806. He was raised to the peerage as Baron Redesdale of Redesdale in the County of Northumberland in 1802.
Gerard Lake (1744-1808) was a British general who served as Commander-in-Chief of the military in British India. For his military ability and valor he was created Baron Lake of Delhi and Laswary and of Aston Clinton in the County of Buckingham in 1804. He was created Viscount Lake in 1807.
Reasons Why Mr. Darcy Is Not a Lord
Thus, a person, usually male, was elevated to the peerage after performing some valuable service for the Crown. Here are several reasons why Mr. Darcy is not a Lord, despite his wealth and landownership:
- Mr. Darcy’s father was not a peer. If he had been a peer—say, the 1st Baron Darcy—then on his death his only son, Fitzwilliam, would have succeeded to the title and become the 2nd Baron Darcy. Since there is no indication in Pride and Prejudice that young Mr. Darcy is a peer, it would seem that his father did not serve in Parliament, the military, or the law. For this reason he was never in a position to be recognized for service to his King or country, was not elevated to the peerage, and had no title to pass on to his son.
- The Darcy family’s wealth might have been derived from trade, particularly from the mining of lead, coal, gypsum or limestone or from the manufacture of goods made from wool, silk, cotton or linen—all prosperous industries in Mr. Darcy’s day.2 Being in trade was a sufficient reason to be excluded from the peerage. King George III and his son, George IV, tightly controlled the growth of the peerage, such that no dukes, with the exceptions of Wellington and Buckingham, were made outside the royal family during this time. Indeed, it is said that George III stipulated that “no individual actively engaged in trade, however respectable his fortune, could be admitted to the British peerage.”3 The exception was Robert Smith, a banker and friend of Prime Minister Pitt, who was made Lord Carrington. Never fear, even if it was not acceptable to ennoble a man in trade, there was nothing wrong in marrying an heiress from the wealthy commercial class.
- Mr. Darcy is 28 years old at the end of Pride and Prejudice—most likely too young to have served his country in any meaningful way. My brief examination of the creation of peerages in the early 19th century found that most men were elevated to the peerage when they were in their 50s or 60s. Henry Wellesley, for example, was a British diplomat and politician; he was 55 when created Baron Cowley in 1828. Edward Bootle-Wilbraham, a British landowner and politician, was 57 when ennobled Baron Skelmersdale in 1828. William Draper Best was a British politician and judge; he was 61 when raised to the peerage as Baron Wynford. One man—George James Welbore Agar-Ellis—was a youthful 34 when created Baron Dover in 1831. Perhaps it’s worth noting that he was the only son of a viscount, but he could claim his own accomplishments: he was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries and the Royal Society in 1816, when he was only 19 years old, and won a seat in Parliament when he was 21. He was briefly the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests under Lord Grey between 1830 and 1831, which likely earned him the desired service for elevation to the peerage. (And he was handsome, too!)
George James Welbore Agar-Ellis, 1st Lord Dover, 1823 (Wikimedia Commons)
Mr. Darcy Might Be Ennobled One Day
If we agree that Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice in the mid-1790s—specifically, 1796 to 1797, as indicated by John Halperin4—and given that Mr. Darcy was 28 years old at the end of the novel, then we can calculate that he was born in the late 1760s. Let’s say he was born in 1768, which made him 28 in 1796. If most peerages were created for persons in their 50s or 60s, then he might be elevated to the peerage in the 1820s or early 1830s—provided he had done something of value for the Crown. Perhaps by the 1820s he will have served as a diplomat, as occurs in Elizabeth Aston’s novel Mr. Darcy’s Daughters, or as a politician, either of which activity might bring the recognition that earns him a noble title. He’s only 28 in Pride and Prejudice. There’s plenty of time for him to make a name for himself.
Sources:
1David Beamish deserves a medal for organizing a compilation of United Kingdom peerage creations from 1801 to 2015. Thanks, David!
2The Reverend Daniel Lysons and Samuel Lysons. Magna Britannia: being a Concise Topographical Account of the Several Counties of Great Britain, Vol. V, Derbyshire. (London, 1817.)
3A. Aspinall. English Historical Documents, 1783-1832. London: Routledge, 1959, p. 187.
4John Halperin. The Life of Jane Austen. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984, p. 66.
But perhaps the real question is why Jane Austen chose to make him not a lord. After all he is supposed to be so high and mighty. Why wouldn’t she have added being a member of the nobility to add to his snobbery? Jane Austen must have had a reason to avoid making him a lord. Would it have been considered absolutely impossible for a lord to be achievable by her heroine? Was she afraid to insult the aristocracy? Or was she sending a message, that he is so astoundingly snobby and not even a lord?
Yours are the sort of questions I’ve been puzzling over for years, especially whenever I read that Chatsworth, the seat of the Duke of Devonshire, is thought to be the model for Darcy’s estate, Pemberley. One would think that a family who owned an estate the size of Chatsworth would be aristocratic, having both money and power. In the case of the Darcy family, the wealth on display at Pemberley might have come from mining in Derbyshire or from other business investments. Or perhaps the Darcy family was like Elizabeth Montagu’s: wealthy, educated, and well connected to the aristocracy, although not “of” the aristocracy. We know that Darcy’s mother was Lady Catherine’s sister, so there is an aristocratic connection there. Otherwise it is all murky. But I like your idea that Austen wanted Mr. Darcy to look and act a snob while not even being a Lord! I think it’s possible that Mr. Darcy might one day become a Lord and also that a daughter of a country squire, like Elizabeth Bennet, could marry into the upper class (although I’m having trouble identifying a specific example of it). I cannot think Austen was afraid of insulting anybody, for she readily abused the clergy (Mr. Collins), the aristocracy (Lady Catherine), the wealthy (Mr. Rushworth of Mansfield Park), and the obsequious (the Eltons in Emma). What we need is a time machine. Miss Austen has much to answer for. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I am a lord by descent. My father was carried it after 40 years of military service. And from 1611. Now I carry his title and I have served for 32 years.
I confess to being confused initially by your post, but then I read about John Villiers, 1st Viscount Purbeck and his wife, Lady Purbeck, who ran off with another man (Sir Robert Howard) and had a son by him: Robert (Howard) Danvers. If I have followed the historical record accurately, you are a descendant of Robert Danvers. Thus, I believe your comments suggest another reason for why the Darcy family was not a member of the English nobility: a noble renounced his title, leaving his descendants in limbo. As an American, I find the complexities of primogeniture in England bewildering! Thank you for commenting on my post. Best wishes to you.
I wonder why Austen named him Fitzwilliam Darcy if his money was new-ish or from trade, since is seems to point to his being a descendant of William the Conqueror or one of his soldiers, many of whom apparently came from Arcy in Normandy. According to Wikipedia the name Darcy was very popular in England.
Dear Judith, yours is an excellent question, but one I can’t answer. There is so much about Mr. Darcy that confuses me. I looked up the surname Darcy in Mark Antony Lower’s book titled English Surnames, vol. II, published in 1849 (found on Google Books). He does not report Darcy among the 60 most common names in England and Wales, but he does show two similar names in the index: Darcey and D’Arcy. He mentions Darcy in chapter IV, writing that it is likely a corruption of a foreign surname, specifically Darcy from Adrecy (a French name). Also, in the chapter on Irish surnames, Lower indicates that some families gallicised their names, as O’Dorcy to D’Arcy. In another Google book — The New World of English Words by Edward Phillips (published in 1662) — there is this interesting entry: “Darcy’s or de Adrecy’s, the name of an ancient Family of Barons living in Lincolnshire, descended from Norman De Adrecy or ‘Darcy de Notion (or Noƈion — the text is not legible here), who lived in great favor and esteem with Henry the third.” (Perhaps the location of Pemberley was in Lincolnshire!) A paper on JSTOR by M. Schele De Vere on common Virginia surnames, published in 1887 (the article can be downloaded in PDF from jstor.org), states that “Darcy is found by the side of d’Arcy” (p. 202) — a rather murky description to my way of thinking, but the author is writing of French names so her conclusion appears to agree with Lower’s. If I ever see anything that provides more information on the surname Darcy I will email you. It looks to me as though Jane Austen made up the name, an activity Charles Dickens would have approved of mightily. But thanks for spurring me to do a little research on the famous Mr. Darcy! Best wishes to you.
Oh my goodness! Amazing article dude! Many thanks,
However I am experiencing troubles with your RSS.
I don’t understand the reason why I can’t join it. Is there
anyone else having the same RSS issues? Anyone
who knows the solution can you kindly respond? Thanks!!
Hi, betberry. I am thrilled to hear that you are enjoying my blog but unhappy to learn that my RSS button isn’t working properly. I contacted my web host yesterday and believe the problem is now fixed. Please try again. If you still have a problem, contact me right away. Meanwhile, I plan to sign up for the RSS feed and see whether it works for me! Best wishes. Diane
I truly think there is too much discussion about Darcy’s ancestors. In the history of England (especially after William the Conquerer), there were many men who came over from Normandy and were not made peers, but had long traditions of land ownership. Lady Catherine spoke to Elizabeth about reasons why she should not consider herself as equal to the Darcy name since it was an “old family” that had continued land ownership for generations. In addition, Darcy’s maternal line was from the nobility.
Second Point: I think that Austen wrote about people that she knew-the gentry. Why would she write about the nobility since the people she was around most were from the gentry and were considered a part of the upper classes. After all, her status was not even technically of the gentry. She lived for the most part in the country where much of the gentry resided. It makes sense that the authenticity of a writer is tested by writing stories about what one knows. Sometimes I think we have a tendency to overthink writing, and, especially Jane Austen. She was brilliant and let us leave at that and enjoy her work for another generation!
I do so like your comments, Penelope, about Darcy’s lack of a title. Both points are well made. Jane Austen knew exactly how to write about a wealthy young landowner whose family probably made their fortune from landownership and/or coal mining in Derbyshire. And she would have gotten Darcy’s stately home right too! I’ve seen Chatsworth and it’s a beauty, although some of the other homes used as stand-ins for Pemberley appear to be equally gorgeous. Would that we could travel back in time to see what she saw! Kind regards, Diane