The Dukes (73 page)
The fact is, the Duke was mad. He was hidden away in a small house with garage in Dittons Road, Polegate, in the rural district of Hailsham, near Eastbourne, where he led his anonymous and inoffensive life, while the great empire of which he was the titular head proceeded independently in London. He did not marry.
The 4th Duke married, but had no heir. He was badly wounded in World War II, and never fully recovered from his injuries. It behoves the 6th Duke, then, to save the title from extinction, although whatever may happen to the title, the name and fame of Grosvenor are assured of survival. Somehow it has always been understood that the name of Grosvenor is the important element, and that the title of Westminster is a mere appendage. This is not true of any other dukedom, where the title is always known at the expense of the surname.
A walk through the streets of central London tells the entire story of this chapter in microcosm. For in
Ebury
Street, and South
Audley
Street, and
Davies
Street, and in the grandiose beauty of
Grosvenor, Belgrave,
and
Eaton
Squares, is written the foresight of an astute family.
Legislation of the last quarter of the twentieth century threatened to erase the achievements of the Grosvenor family. By the terms of the Leasehold Reform Act of 1967, and the Housing Acts of 1969 and 1974, leaseholders were enabled to buy the freehold of their houses against the wishes of their landlords, providing the rateable value did not exceed £1500 in London or £750 elsewhere. This posed a serious problem for the Grosvenor Estate, for it meant that many of the Belgravia and Mayfair properties became immediately liable for enfranchisement in this way. Horrid visions of beautiful Regency houses being painted red or black or purple, having their original windows removed and replaced by modern designs, or being substantially altered, presented themselves, with the Grosvenors, who had conceived and maintained Belgravia in its purity, powerless to object. The Estate did not accept the inevitability of such a prospect. After protracted negotiations, they succeeded in having incorporated into the Act a Section (19) which allows for the landlord to retain the right to continue a management policy for the whole estate, while in no way interfering with the leaseholder's right to buy the property. A landlord with an enlightened and cohesive management policy may apply to the Minister of Housing for a certificate to retain management powers. In the case of Belgravia, the High Court approved the granting of such a certificate in 1973. This means that the Estate reserves control over structural alterations, ensures that the architectural scale and design are maintained and requires all inhabitants, whether tenants or not, to carry out external painting every three years in the approved colour. It also controls the use of properties. Thus we are not, after all, the last generation to see the beauty of Belgravia; the foresight of the Grosvenor Estate ensures that it will be preserved.
[13]
The Duke of Westminster, though the youngest but one of the twenty-six dukes alive now, is in many ways the most serious and impressive. Totally unlike Bend Or, who was a
bon viveur
above all else, he is actively concerned with the running of the Grosvenor Estates, where he is Chairman of the Board of Trustees and works full-time. Besides this, he is connected with no less than one hundred and thirty- nine other organisations which claim his attention, though he prefers to avoid public duties which are purely ceremonial. The Duke sits on the House of Lords European committee for rural policy, but does not take his seat in the chamber. A committed advocate of the democratic principle, he believes the second chamber should be made more effective by being composed of elected representatives whose opinions should be heeded, rather than tolerated. Nor is he a man to shoulder his huge responsibilities simply because they have been inherited; he embraces them with relish and energy. Naturally, he was trained in all aspects of the Grosvenor Estates from an early age, but his father wisely gave
* The author is indebted to
j.
Lindgren of the Grosvenor Office for information in this paragraph.
him a year off to do as he wished, during which time he was, amongst other things, a cowboy in Canada; he was not, in consequence, tempted to feel himself trapped or burdened by his fate.
The Duke is married to Natalia Ayesha Phillips ('Tally'), granddaughter of Sir Harold Wernher. Her sister, Alexandra Anastasia ('Sasha') is Duchess of Abercorn. The Duke of Westminster is not only the Duke of Abercorn's brother-in-law, but his godson and second cousin as well.
references
1.
Complete Peerage.
2.
Gervas Huxley,
Victorian Duke,
pp. ioo-i.
3.
C. T. Gatty,
Mary Davies and the Manor of Ebury,
Vol. 1, p.
89.
4.
ibid.,
Vol. II, p.
181.
5.
ibid.,
II,
,118-9,
I2
9 "
6.
James Pope-Hennessey,
Queen Mary,
p.
303.
7.
Douglas Sutherland,
The Landowners,
p.
93.
8.
ibid.,
pp.
83, 96.
9.
Anita Leslie,
Edwardians in Love,
p.
223.
10.
Duchess of Bedford,
Now the Duchesses,
pp.
175, 177, 181.
11.
Chips Channon,
Diaries,
p.
477.
12.
Duke of Manchester,
My Candid Recollections,
p.
236.
13.
Gervas Huxley,
op. cit.,
p.
103.
14.
ibid.,
p.
91.
15.
Gervas Huxley,
Lady Elizabeth and the Grosvenors,
p.
15.
16.
Walpole, XXI,
490.
17.
F. M. L. Thompson,
English Landed Society in the Nineteenth
Century,
p.
89.
18.
The Times,
10th February
1969.
19.
Complete Peerage.
20.
The Times,
23rd
February
1963.
Anthony Sampson,
Anatomy of Britain,
p. 12
Duke of Manchester; Duke of Montrose
The Duke of Manchester referred to in this chapter died in 1977 but has remained the central figure as he was the last of his line to make any mark. His son, the 11th Duke, died in 1985, whereupon the titles passed to a younger brother, born in 1938, who lives somewhere in England and attempts to keep the lowest of profiles.
There was a time when it was unthinkable that any peer of the realm, especially a duke, should live anywhere but on his land. It was his duty to do so. Some went abroad to escape creditors (like the eighteenth- century Duke of St Albans), or to side-step the scandal which their activities would provoke were they to remain in England (like the Duke of Beaufort's sons in the nineteenth century), and some because they were loose in the head and an embarrassment to their families. No one lived abroad through
choice.
The climate is different now. A number of peers have emigrated because taxation was bleeding them dry, or because they found that the atmosphere in Britain had become oppressive. The Duke of Bedford lived in South Africa before he came to the title (whereupon he returned immediately to England to assume his responsibilities at Woburn). The Duke of Newcastle also made his home in Africa for some years, though he now lives in quiet anonymity in Hampshire. Two dukes remained in Africa - their Graces of Manchester and of Montrose. The Duke of Manchester (1902-1977) lived in Kenya from 1946, and the Duke of Montrose (born 1907) in Rhodesia since 1931. They were virtual exiles, and they wanted to be - and Montrose, of course, still is.
A degree of disapproval is felt, rather vaguely perhaps, when mention of their name is made. There is a suspicion that they ought to have stayed when times were bad, their ancestors having reaped handsome rewards from the good times. Their departure does not accord with the principle of interdependent loyalty in which ducal estates have flourished. The tenants might well feel their lords have bolted.
(In fairness, it should be pointed out that in Montrose's case at least, the family estates are run by his son and heir Lord Graham.)
Manchester and Montrose had much in common which could explain why they, and not others, left the country. They both came from families which have long been prey to wanderlust. The 10th Duke of Manchester's mother and grandmother were both Americans, who brought to the blood a certain internationalism. The Duke soon displayed an urge to spread his wings. He was for many years a Commander in the Royal Navy. His father had been a lieutenant in the R.N.V.R. The Duke of Montrose, too, was in the R.N.V.R., and his father might even be described as obsessed with the sea. He devoted his entire life to the sea and sailors, giving long service to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Both with naval training, Montrose and Manchester were also both passionate farmers. Manchester inherited this from his grandmother's family, who were southern plantation people in the United States. His brother, Lord Edward Montagu, felt the draw before he did, and went to farm in Canada. His son Roderick lives in Edmonton, Alberta. The Montrose passion for farming derives from the long association of the family with the Scottish lowlands.
Other ties united the two. They both came from a long line of handsome men, and were distantly related. The Duke of Montrose is descended twice over from Manchester stock; his great-grandfather was the 7th Duke of Manchester, and his great-great-greatgrandfather was the 4th Duke. It is no surprise that they should have shared certain family characteristics, then, which impelled them to choose exile.
Most prominent among these characteristics is an unabashed blunt conviction that the white races are inherently superior to all others. The Duke of Manchester's father published his memoirs in 1932. Under one illustration he wrote the caption, "some of the niggers employed on my grandparents' plantation". In the text he felt the need to explain the use of such a word. "As the modern jargon of equal rights for everybody had not then penetrated to their childlike minds thay had no objection to being called 'niggers', and would in fact have been surprised at any other description being given to them."
1
Some years later, in 1960, the Duke of Montrose was able to write, "It is common observation that the African child is a bright and promising little fellow up to the age of puberty, which he reaches in any case two years before the European. He then becomes hopelessly inadequate and disappointing and it is well known that this is due to his almost total obsession henceforth in matters of sex."
2
On other occasions Montrose has been heard to refer to the dark savage depths of the African mind, to "mongrelisation" for miscegenation, and to people who have ideas different from his own as "long-haired enthusiasts".
3
The Duke of Manchester had a staff of 187 persons on his farm in Kenya, with fourteen houseboys and twenty gardeners. There are no more than a couple of dukes in Britain who could match this. It is odd to think that the ducal style of life, more or less extinct in this country, should have continued to thrive in Africa. Another motive comes from a crusading nature. Both men believed that the African countries have reason to be grateful for their presence in their midst of representatives of a superior culture and European mentality. Montrose in particular is a religious man (his son, daughter and son-in-law are all actively engaged in the Moral Rearmament crusade) who sometimes betrays a belief in divine mission. He is on record as saying that Rhodesian territory is mentioned in the Bible and that Rhodesians were people of destiny charged with the task of being a blessing to mankind.
4
Manchester and Montrose were made of the stuff of pioneers. They had the courage of the pioneer, the readiness to work hard, the determination and the ruthlessness. When Manchester went to Kenya in 1946, he lived in a mud hut. He drove the tractors to establish his own farm, and built his own magnificent house (not, of course, single-handed). He died with 11,000 acres in glorious country and reason to be proud of his achievement. The house contained some of the family treasures which he brought out of England, including Holbeins, Van Dycks, an Aubusson carpet, and a library of 13,000 books. The seat of the family in England, Kimbolton Castle in Huntingdonshire, was sold to Kimbolton Grammar School in 1950 for £12,500, and the entire contents were auctioned off the year before. Some paintings of huge dimensions, attributed to Rubens, Van Dyck, Tintoretto and Veronese, went for ten and eleven guineas apiece. The other seat, in Ireland — Tandaragee Castle, County Armagh - has been empty since the last duke's time. The Manchester estate possessed about 14,000 acres in England, but the 10th Duke himself broke all ties with this country and most of the estates were put up for sale. His heir, Lord Mandeville, farmed in Kenya, and his brother, we have seen, farms in Canada. The Duke was so identified with Kenya that he mastered several of the local languages, including Swahili. He married twice. His first wife was Nell Stead, an Australian, who died in 1966. The second wife was a native of California, formerly Mrs Crocker. Preceding duchesses of Manchester have been German, Cuban, American, Australian and American, the last English duchess being at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
The Duke of Montrose went to Rhodesia at the age of twenty-four, when he was heir apparent to the titles. He had no money, and worked from scratch to establish the 3000-acre farm he now manages. In 1925 there had been 130,000 acres on Montrose property in Scotland, shrinking within a few years, largely through the voracious demands of death duties, to 10,000 acres. It was at that point that young Lord Graham packed his bags and left. The family seat, Buchanan Castle, had proved too large for anyone to live in, so they had moved to a farm house, to which they added some rooms, called Auchmar. Here, not far from Glasgow, the Duke's son and heir, Marquess of Graham, now lives.
Montrose is an immensely impressive man, six feet and five inches tall (he weighed eleven and a quarter pounds at birth!), shambling and dominant. He has winning Celtic charm, courtesy and warmth, but when roused he can be gruff to a degree. His reputation for bluntness is well-deserved. He is not a man to waste words or to ingratiate.
The Duke of Manchester ceased to have any official function when his country became independent, whereas the Duke of Montrose continued his political interests in Rhodesia, presenting himself by the way with a curious and embarrassing ethical problem. In 1962 he was appointed Minister of Agriculture in Winston Field's government; his colleague at the Treasury was Ian Smith. Two years later Field resigned and provoked the crisis which produced Ian Smith's own government, the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, the abortive constitutional conferences, and the appeal from the Queen to her Rhodesian subjects to obey her Ministers at Westminster. Throughout this crisis, Montrose retained his post at the Ministry of Agriculture, transferring later to the Ministry of External Affairs and Defence. He was, therefore, part of a rebellious illegal government, guilty in constitutional law of treason. It is a beguiling irony which makes a traitor of the direct descendant of the Great Montrose, one of the most illustrious heroes in our history, who gave his life in the service of the Crown. The irony appears to be lost on the Duke, who wrote an article explaining that he did not feel himself bound by the oath of allegiance to remain loyal to ideals which he does not share, and which -were not in his mind when he took the oath.
6
It is doubtful if the argument would hold up in law. He would, at least theoretically, be liable to prosecution under the Treason Act of 1351 for taking part in a treacherous assembly against the Queen's Majesty. Roger Casement and Lord Haw-Haw were both prosecuted under this Act. Since U.D.I. the Duke has not been back to Britain to test the matter. He holds a Rhodesian passport and considers himself a Rhodesian in all but birth. He recently applied for a British
passport, which was refused
.
[14]
Willie Hamilton, tireless pursuer of the abusers of privilege, suggested that the noble Duke be banned henceforth from Westminster. The Prime Minister of the day, Harold Wilson, would not be pressed. "Those who have had a chance of observing this member of the illegal regime at close quarters will not treat him with quite so much seriousness as you do," he said. The Duke's constitutional position continues to be a peculiar unresolved anomaly.
As time progressed, Montrose was revealed to be too extreme even for Mr Smith. He had already broken with his old friend Humphrey Gibbs, H.M. Governor, as a result of the crisis, and in 1968 came the rupture with Smith, whose policy of gradualism exasperated the Duke. It was widely rumoured that Montrose had persuaded Smith to reverse his position and reject the agreement he had worked out with Wilson on H.M.S.
Tiger
in 1966.
6
This time Smith could not be pushed towards obstinacy, so Montrose resigned from his government. The resignation did not make the impression he might have expected. The
Daily Telegraph
, in a leader, called him "an insignificant person",
7
which must have hurt; word was passed round that he had not been a particularly effective minister anyway, and that his speeches as well as his understanding of the work were often less polished than those of the black men whose intelligence he so deplored.
Montrose remains passionately devoted to the idea of Commonwealth, and just as hotly antagonistic against the idea of Common Market. He is a man of strong emotions, intensely patriotic (though to which
patria
is sometimes confusing), outspoken, unmoved by compromise. If he were to meet his great ancestor at the pearly gates, they would hardly recognise one another. Sometimes his passion rouses him to an impressive rhetoric. "We shall soon know," he said in 1965, "whether our mother country will say to us 'My sons go in peace with my blessing', or whether she will throw us from her, spitefully, upon a rocky road, while she clutches to her bosom the cuckoos in her nest."
8
He has not been in government now since 1968, but is still in Rhodesia, where he prefers to be known as Angus Graham. Even as a minister he was never more than "Lord Graham", apparently to avoid embarrassing the Rhodesians who would not know how to address him. Also, he quite manifestly feels more easy as Angus Graham, the Rhodesian farmer.
Interestingly enough, the family name "Graham" is perhaps derived from a word "greim" meaning one who is (or looks) determined, one who holds hard,
9
as in the modern "grim-faced". If so, it would apply most aptly to the 7th Duke of Montrose, and to that part of the personality of his great ancestor, the great Marquess of Montrose. They have little else in common.
The Marquess of Montrose (1612-1650), great-grandfather of the dukedom is one of the giant figures of history, martyr, military genius, poet, democratic idealist, and hero of romance and chivalry. He is, in his way, as great a man as Wellington or Marlborough, and brings 'to the name of Montrose as much lustre and distinction. He died before his task could be completed, but he left behind him "an inspiration and a name which would outlast the ruin of his hopes".
10
Montrose was descended from a line of earls, the first of whom was killed at Flodden Field on 9th September 1513, fighting in the opposite camp to Surrey, ancestor of the Duke of Norfolk. The story of Montrose runs parallel with that of Argyll and of Hamilton, ancestors of the dukes of that name, who have found their way into other chapters. Of the three, it is Montrose who has become legendary, while Argyll and Hamilton have difficulty retrieving any kind of reputation from the events.