DEATH OF A GENTLEMAN

Ted and RalphDowry – that’s a word you don’t hear much these days. Back in the age of dynastic betrothals made as business deals between wealthy families, dowries counted for a lot. In 1677, what eventually became the mother of all dowries was delivered by Mary Davies, a twelve-year-old heiress who brought to the marital table some undeveloped marshland in central London. Her husband-to-be was Sir Thomas Grosvenor, a 21-year-old Cheshire landowner and future MP for Chester. Mary Davies’s dowry included around 100 acres in a disreputable neighbourhood primarily known for its ancient fair held every May, which attracted the kind of debauched rowdiness later portrayed in paintings by Hogarth; the remainder of the land she’d inherited encompassed half a square mile stretching from Hyde Park to the Thames. The Grosvenor Estate was developed by the couple’s children after the relatively early deaths of their parents, and is now better known as Mayfair, Belgravia and Park Lane. Over 300 years later, Mary Davies’s marshland is now the most prized real estate on the planet.

It may seem somewhat anachronistic in the twenty-first century, but the most expensive areas of London largely remain in private hands, still owned by families that purchased the land three or four centuries ago. These areas were developed and built upon in the subsequent decades following their original purchase and were gradually transformed into some of the country’s most exclusive residential districts. It’s no wonder the families that originally owned the land have held onto it. The Grosvenor family, along with the Cavendish’s, the Bedford’s and the Cadogan’s, were prominent landowners during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the head of the Grosvenor family was elevated to the upper echelons of the peerage by Queen Victoria, who created the Dukedom of Westminster in 1874. The sixth holder of that title passed away from a heart attack a couple of days ago at the age of 64.

The late Lord (Patrick) Lichfield once remarked that the aristocracy are made of tough stuff, and the twentieth century saw them receive their greatest challenges. After hundreds of years in which they had essentially governed the nation, times had changed and power was no longer a given. The increased death duties levied upon the richest families in the country following the Second World War saw the demolition of hundreds of great country houses the aristocracy could no longer afford to run, robbing the British landscape of some of its most beautiful residences. Those that survived had to be adapted into tourist attractions, opening their doors to the public and creating the industry of the stately home in the process, something that helps maintain the astronomical upkeep of such houses. As caretakers of what are undeniably amongst this country’s architectural jewels, they haven’t done a bad job.

By all accounts, the Sixth Duke of Westminster was in possession of the one factor inherited wealth can imbue in the best of men that is often absent from self-made barrow-boys such as Philip Green and Mike Ashley – class. Gerald Grosvenor had an estimated fortune of £9.35 billion, making him the third richest man in Britain and relegating the likes of David Cameron or George Osborne to mere wannabes. But it would seem he had a degree of humility about him sorely lacking in those who seek to buy their way into high society and mistake material goods for greatness.

The genuine aristocracy probably have more in common with the ‘common man’ than they do the aspiring middle-classes and the social-climbing self-made men, both of whom look down on the ranks they’ve risen from with a contempt that is absent from those who’ve never belonged to them. Being born at the top means there’s nowhere to aim for, just as many born at the bottom remain there because they feel they can rise no higher; this seems to breed a shared absence of ambition that social climbers find incomprehensible. Consequently, the two social demographics within British society that know how to have a good time and don’t get hung up about it emanate from the polar ends of the social scale.

Although he attended Harrow, Gerald Grosvenor didn’t fit in on account of the Irish accent he had acquired though being raised and initially educated in County Fermanagh; he turned to the army and eventually reached the rank of Major General, finally retiring from military service in 2012. The land he inherited upon ascending to the title of Duke in 1979 included Liverpool city centre; Liverpool was a beneficiary of his philanthropy, and it is testament to the kind of aristocrat he was that he saw fit to use his considerable wealth not to open a dozen bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, but to donate handsomely to charities and, for example, to aid struggling farmers during the devastating foot-and-mouth outbreak of 2001.

It’s the easiest reaction in the world to sneer at the lucky few who are born into the kind of privilege the late Duke of Westminster was born into; but none of us ask to be born and none of us can measure our own origins until we are exposed to the origins of others. That some decide to benefit the less fortunate by employing their vast wealth in ways that Flash Harry’s with a heavily-advertised Rolls Royce in the garage or a yacht in Monaco regard as anathema is to their credit. If we are to have riches in the hands of the few as opposed to the many, I would rather it be in the hands of Gerald Grosvenor than the former head of BHS any day.

© The Editor

https://www.epubli.co.uk/shop/buch/48495#beschreibung

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “DEATH OF A GENTLEMAN

  1. Nicely observed, beautifully written and I agree. Toffs like The D of W have a strong patrician ethic; they make sure their serfs are OK, even if they don’t invite them to dinner as such; but be assured they share a beer or a dram with their beaters after the shoot, and they know the names of their children. Colossal twats like Green and Ashley have no ethics; they are merely greed machines and they care not one jot about their slaves or about anything but pounds and pence.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. A very fitting tribute to an unsung hero of our time. I think it was the self-made Scottish-American industrialist Andrew Carnegie, after generously funding many handsome public libraries in towns across the UK, who said: “He who dies rich dies disgraced.”

    Apropos, apparently the Duke of W’s wealth is actually held in a trust – he was a beneficiary of the trust but not the actual owner of all that wealth. (This structure also conveniently avoids IHT on his passing, something that would presumably not endear him to the SJW Guardian-reading types.)

    Liked by 1 person

  3. In considering the difference between the true aristocracy and Johnny-come-lately ‘new money’, one is always reminded of the dismissive comment on Michael Heseltine by the delightfully dissolute Alan Clark MP, sometime minister in Thatcher’s government and unapologetic philanderer –
    “He’s the sort of man who bought his own furniture”.
    I’m as sure that Messrs Green & Ashley have bought their own furniture, probably from Bling-R-Us, as I am that the late D of W didn’t ever need to buy any of his.

    Just a little younger than me and a little richer too, but even that greater wealth couldn’t extend his stay – I’d better start counting the days.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Exactly how much tax is he ‘getting away with’ via the trusts that were set up? Whilst poor people are jailed for benefit fraud or petty theft he has got away with billions – ah, the elites, don’t they just deserve it all???????????????????????????????

    Like

    1. It’s a tad unfair to apply the blame for the ‘system’ onto the late Duke. Over the last century we have had many governments, of left and right, which have all chosen not to eliminate those practices, meaning that they remain entirely legal and quite different from any type of fraud or theft.

      Whilst the late Duke and his ilk may appear to have vast funds at their disposal, most of this perceived wealth is often tied up in old country houses and landholdings, of which folk like the late Duke become accidental caretakers for their lifetime. Were the ‘system’ to denude them of their apparent wealth (as was occasionally attempted in the past), the consequence would be the loss of many valuable heritage sites and landscapes, most of which are now open to public access. It’s a tricky balance for any government but one which, to date, they have usually managed to achieve within reason.

      However, those inadequates who are merely jealous of the assets of others will never be satisfied until it has all been seized and then pissed up against the wall of corrupt International Aid or the many other festering bottomless pits propounded by their kind. Faced with that alternative, I’m quite happy for the new Duke to carry on the family burden and for the noble old Duke to rest in peace.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I can’t make up my mind whether Ron’s comment is for real, or a manifestation of Poe’s law. If the latter, it’s missing the 😉

    Like

  6. “Consequently, the two social demographics within British society that know how to have a good time and don’t get hung up about it emanate from the polar ends of the social scale.”

    Pace George Orwell, if there is hope, then it lies in the proles?

    So far as I can gather, Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, the 6th Duke of Westminster, seems to have been a fairly harmless type that accidentally inherited a massive fortune, unlike some royals didn’t really take to being thrust in front of the public and media eye, and dealt with the stress of that, possibly, by smoking a hellish amount of cigarettes, which, let’s face it, probably contributed to his relatively early death (I do not mean this remotely as a morally judgemental comment – speaking as a reformed smoker, I am the first to acknowledge that the evil weed is a stress reliever, if nothing else.)

    Still though, if his large, and entirely unearned fortune caused him a lot of stress, he could, plausibly, potentially, have given it all away, no? Or given most of it away, and retreated to a quiet monkish life on some small island? So, it probably didn’t cause him all that much stress, seeing as he didn’t do any of those things.

    My favourite UK aristo though, was someone who was much more decadent and debauched than the late Duke:

    https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2006/jan/22/features.magazine37

    Reputedly, in 1993 or thereabouts, the KLF burned a million quid on live tv. Hervey burned a multiple of that. He probably comes close to holding the record for ‘setting fire’ to the highest quantity of asset wealth in the (relatively speaking) shortest period. One cannot but acknowledge that that was some achievement, even though a rather perverse one.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Agree that Hervey definitely merits a movie.

        He wasn’t necessarily a nice person, by all accounts, but the fact that his half-brother also died relatively young, and also in rather sad circumstances (his half-brother suffered from schizophrenia) does seem to give credence to his theory that he wasn’t fully to blame for his own addictions/depravity, that it was partially a case of ‘bad blood’, as it were.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s