53 Ibid., p. 615.
54 Diary of Joseph Farington, vol. 11, p. 3903, 31 March 1811.
55 Illegitimates in France and Germany were barred from guild membership, for example. See:
Mary Jo Maynes, ‘Adolescent Sexuality and Social Identity in French and German Lower Class Autobiography’, Journal of Family History 18.4 (1992), p. 402; Boes, '"Dishonourable" Youth', pp. 349-50; Ulbricht, 'Foundling Hospitals', p. 231. A canon law requirement that illegitimates obtain dispensation for ordination seems not to have been enforced, see Richard Burn, Ecclesiastical Law. By Richard Burn, L.L.D. Chancellor of the Diocese of Carlisle, and Vicar of
illegitimates' education, or indicate illegitimates' own preferences. On this latter possibility there is unfortunately very little evidence. It may also reflect their limited access to family resources. Illegitimates could not inherit entailed estates and titles and, as chapters one and two demonstrated, were highly dependent on parental and familial goodwill. Among the wealthiest families with plenty of financial resources and social patronage illegitimates do not seem to have been held back; some achieved stellar occupational success. Among less prosperous families the difference between legitimate and illegitimate occupations was more pronounced. Evidence suggests that this was primarily because parents focused scarce resources into the upward mobility of legitimate children and encouraged illegitimates to enter occupations where they could become self-sufficient.
The most obvious and economically damaging consequence of illegitimacy was exclusion from entailed estates and titles. This caused the greatest relative disadvantage for the illegitimate eldest sons of peers. Charles Richard Fox, the illegitimate eldest son of Baron Holland, was born only one year before his parents' marriage. The title and most of the family estates went to his younger brother and Charles became an army officer, not a peer.56 Illegitimates also did not have the same
inheritance status as younger siblings, who were often eligible to inherit subsidiary family estates and titles, usually down the maternal line, through strict settlement.57
Lord Algernon Percy, the second son of the 1st Duke of Northumberland, inherited
the family's secondary title of Baron Lovaine, and Robert and George Manners, the sons of the 3rd Duke of Rutland, inherited their maternal grandfather's lands.58
Fifteen percent of the legitimate younger sons in the dataset eventually gained hereditary titles, an opportunity closed to illegitimates. A similar proportion of legitimate younger sons and illegitimate sons, 18.4 and 16.9 percent respectively, had
56 C. J. Wright, ‘Fox, Charles Richard (1796–1873)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
(Oxford, 2004-2011), http://www.oxforddnb.com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/view/article/10025 [accessed 21 May 2017].
57 For more on illegitimates' exclusion from strict settlement, and the historiographical debate
surrounding the practice, see chapter 2, pp. 128-9.
58 'Lord Algernon Percy', History of Parliament Online, http://www.historyofparliamentonline.
org/ volume/1754-1790/member/percy-lord-algernon-1750-1830 [accessed 18 April 2017]; 'Lord George Manners', History of Parliament Online, http://www.historyofparliamentonline. org /volume/1754-1790/member/manners-%28afterwards-manners-sutton%29-george-1723- 83 [accessed, 18 April 2017]; 'Lord Robert Manners', History of Parliament Online,
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1754-1790/member/manners-sutton- robert-1722-62 [accessed 18 April 2017].
no discoverable profession and lived solely off landed income. The majority of the illegitimates in this case were, however, their fathers' only children and so inherited estates not as younger sons but as de facto heirs. 59 Illegitimate sons were generally
much less likely to inherit land or to have the potential of doing so, immediately creating a distinct difference between illegitimate and legitimate younger sons. Access to land was the most significant determinant of illegitimate occupations and social status because it opened up opportunities to so many other markers of elite influence, such as political office.60 Lord Egremont's illegitimate sons George, Henry
and Charles Wyndham became important political figures in the early nineteenth century because they owned most of Sussex and employed much of the local population.61 In consequence, George was created Baron Leconfield, albeit in his
seventies, and his brothers became MPs. George explicitly grounded his status within his ownership of the ancestral Egremont estate of Petworth. In a hunting dispute in 1839, after his father's death, he asserted his rights as the 'possessor' of Petworth and Lord Egremont's 'Representative at Petworth'.62 He was accepted by
the community, became leader of the hunt, and he and his siblings were referred to reverentially as 'the only Family in West Sussex worth preserving'.63 I have found no
suggestion that the Wyndham brothers were not considered the rightful owners of Petworth or that their illegitimacy made them unfit for public office. Illegitimacy was not irrelevant, as George was still excluded from the Earldom, but the influence that could be derived from land ownership considerably mitigated the disadvantages of illegitimacy.64
59 Seven legitimate younger sons (18.4 percent), and nine illegitimate sons (16.9 percent). Of
the nine illegitimates, four were the Manners brothers, who were unusually well looked after by their grandfather the Duke of Rutland. Four of the remaining five illegitimates were their fathers' only sons and so therefore inherited in a more normative primogenitural way.
60 French and Rothery, Man's Estate, pp. 16-17.
61 Queen Victoria reported that Henry Howard, then Earl of Surrey and later 13th Duke of
Norfolk, felt 'he couldn't stand [as MP] again for Sussex, against Col: Wyndham with his immense property', RA: VIC/MAIN/QVJ (W), (Princess Beatrice's copies), Queen Victoria's Journals, 1832-1901 [online edition], 16 May 1839.
62 WSRO: Burrell Mss. Acc. 5927/1/8/6, George Wyndham to the Duke of Beaufort, 21 March
1839; 5927/1/8/7, Statement by George Wyndham, 12 April 1839.
63 WSRO: Burrell Mss Acc 5927/1/8/29, [William Holmes] to Sir Charles Burrell, 6 November
1839. This letter dates from after Lord Egremont's death so must refer to the illegitimate line.
64 Cannon argued that 'land was prized, not only as an investment, but for the political and
The timing of inheritance was also significant. Legitimates' expectation of inheritance was far more secure, partly due to strict settlement. They were known as their fathers' heirs, with considerable social and financial credit in their own right as future peers or landowners. Illegitimates' status was much more dependent on paternal whim and could be supplanted if their father had a legitimate child late in life. They generally only inherited on paternal death, when they were usually in middle age, and unlike legitimate younger siblings lacked the leverage or legal rights mandated by strict settlement. James St Aubyn, the eldest illegitimate son of a baronet with no legitimate offspring, inherited the majority of his father's estates aged 56. Before this, he had worked as a barrister, living in lodgings and dependent on his father's temper and 'cruel and deliberate treatment'.65 His father prevented an
earlier marriage and withheld his allowance, prompting James to seek loans from relatives.66 Three weeks after inheriting his father's estate, he declared his intention
to stand for Parliament, which would have been impossible previously given his uncertain income.67 With no estate of his own he was excluded from many of the
markers of masculine adulthood, such as financial independence or house-holding. Had he been legitimate, he would likely have been able to live off his expectancy, and its accompanying social credit, as a marker of both gentility and adult masculinity.68 Illegitimates' relationship to land as a source of income and social
status was marked by insecurity.
The relationship between land and other sources of power can be seen in table 1. Illegitimates were half as likely as legitimate younger sons to become Members of Parliament because they lacked the landed estates necessary to meet the property
65 For James' disagreements with his father see: HHL: MssHM 44329, John Poole to James St
Aubyn, 23 March 1827; MssHM 44291, John Poole to James St Aubyn, 77 March 1822.
66 HHL: MssHM 80304, Diary of James St Aubyn, 1810-1819, p. 4, 27 January 1810; p. 126, 29
December 1812; p. 226, 1 August 1816. He states on 1 August that the loan was made necessary from the 'hardships I was enduring from the harsh treatment of my father'.
67 HHL: MssHM 63181, Diary of James St Aubyn, 1819-1859, p. 175, 21 September 1839; p. 177,
17 October 1839.
68 For the importance of independence for genteel masculine identity see: French and Rothery,
Man's Estate, pp. 15, 59-62, 115, 123; Fletcher, Growing up in England, pp. 15-16, 172. Cannon
notes that the sons of peers attending school and university could often command considerable respect as 'young persons, who, in the course of time, might command very considerable patronage', Cannon, Aristocratic Century, p. 54.
qualification.69 They were also half as likely to obtain other royal or political office,
again perhaps reflecting the connection between landholding and official posts such as Lord Lieutenant. Illegitimates were more likely to be ennobled, generally for military service. This is partly a false difference; many legitimate younger sons already had titles. While these results indicate that illegitimates were not systematically excluded from public markers of status, there is compelling evidence of disadvantage. Among illegitimates, high-status positions were concentrated among a few very successful individuals who held titles and political office simultaneously.70 In contrast, status positions were more evenly distributed amongst
the legitimate cohort; half of legitimate younger sons had at least either a title, royal or political office, versus only a quarter of illegitimate sons (table 2). Furthermore, there was a striking difference in age. Illegitimates had access to positions of power, but only in much later life. They became MPs on average 13 years later than legitimate younger sons (40 and 26.8 years respectively), at an age closer to that of the average for the Commons as a whole. This suggests that the chances of the illegitimate sons of peers echoed those of legitimate members of a lower social status.71 Many legitimate younger sons became MPs the moment they came of age, in
family-controlled seats. Their place in the governing elite was assured and intended from birth. Illegitimates, in contrast, only obtained power after long and distinguished careers, and after they had been able to build up sufficient income and landed estates of their own. This is a significant difference in access to the main markers of not only power but also class and masculine status.
69 Following the 1710 Property Qualifications Act, county MPs had to have an income of £600
per annum, and borough MPs at least £300 per annum derived from land, from which heirs were exempt, 9 Anne cap. 5 1710/11, cited in Penelope J. Corfield, Power and the Professions in
Britain, 1700-1850 (London, 1995), p. 10.
70 One example would be illegitimate Augustus Clifford who became a Gentleman Usher of
the Black Rod, MP and baronet, partly under the influence of his supportive half-brother the 6th Duke of Devonshire. See G. C. Boase, rev. Roger Morriss, ‘Clifford, Sir Augustus William
James, first baronet (1788–1877)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004-2011), http://www.oxforddnb.com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/view/article/5643
[accessed 21 May 2017].
71 The average age for the Commons as a whole was 33.3 years for the period 1790-1820, 32.6
for 1754-1790, The House of Commons 1790-1820; The History of Parliament: The House of
Commons 1754-1790, ed. L. Namier and J. Brooke (London, 1964),
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1754-1790/survey/iii-members
[accessed 21 May 2017]. For the correlation between age and social status see The History of
Parliament: The House of Commons 1690-1715, ed. D. Hayton, E. Cruickshanks and S. Handley
(London, 2002), http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1690-1715/survey/ members [accessed 21 May 2017].
Although access to land was restricted, illegitimates' access to occupations that did not require landownership mirrored the legitimate norm. Table 3 indicates that illegitimates appear in similar proportions to legitimate younger sons in all the genteel occupations, primarily the clergy, law, army, or navy.72 Illegitimate
employment was slightly more dispersed across the social scale; there are three cases where illegitimates slipped down to the more middling occupations of solicitor, physician, and banker, which were not generally thought appropriate for noble sons.73 In these cases, though, the fathers had either died when their children were
young or were less forthcoming with patronage.74 The empire was also not as
significant a source of employment for illegitimate or younger sons as other historians have suggested.75 These occupational profiles suggest that elite families
perceived illegitimate sons to share their elite social status; the absence of empire, trade and less learned professions suggests that these occupations were not considered genteel enough, even for illegitimate sons.
72 O'Day and Corfield argue that the clergy and barristers were drawn from landed elites:
Rosemary O'Day, The Professions in Early Modern England, 1450-1800 (Harlow, 2000), pp. 110, 141-3; Corfield, Power and the Professions, pp. 88, 224-5.
73 O'Day, Professions, pp. 114, 241, 243-5.
74 The illegitimate sons of Lord Tyrconnel became a solicitor and a physician, but their father
died when they were under five years old.
75 Lawrence Stone and Jeanne C. Fawtier Stone, An Open Elite? England 1540-1880 (Oxford,
1984), p. 281. Stone and Stone's emphasis on colonial employment may reflect the later terminus of their sample, from 1540 to 1879.
Table 1: Access to titles and political office
Type of Status Marker Legitimate Younger
Sons (38) Illegitimate Sons (59)
(N.B. individuals can fit into more than one category; percentages are for comparison only)
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Created peers, baronets or knights 2 5.26 8 13.6
Inherited peerage or baronetage
late in life 6 15.8 0 0
Members of Parliament76 15 39.577 1178 18.6
Other royal or political office79 8 21.1 5 8.5
Table 2: Summary of access to titles and political office
Legitimate Younger Sons Illegitimate Sons
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Discoverable title, royal
or political office 19 50 16 27.1
No discoverable title,
royal or political office 19 50 43 72.9
Total 38 100.0 59 100.0
76 Using the online databases History of Parliament Online,
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/ [accessed 21 May 2017] and Hansard 1803-2005, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com [accessed 21 May 2017].
77 This is higher than Thorne's estimates for the entirety of the House of Commons, as he says
that over 20 percent of the house were the heirs or younger sons of peers between 1790 and 1820, The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1790-1820, ed. R.G. Thorne (London, 1986), http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1790-1820/survey/iii-members [accessed 21 May 2017].
78 Thorne identified only 25 illegitimate MPs between 1790 and 1820, The House of Commons
1790-1820.
79 For example: Lord of the Admiralty, Colonial Governor, High Sheriff, Lord of the
Bedchamber or Lord Lieutenant. I did not include magistrates or church offices such as archbishop.
Table 3: Occupational distribution
Occupation Legitimate Younger Sons Illegitimate Sons
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Army officer 10 26.3 19 32.2
Naval officer 6 15.8 11 18.6
Clergy 8 21.1 9 15.3
MP, landowner, peer (no other discoverable profession)
7 18.4 10 16.9
Domestic civil service (e.g.
ordnance office clerk) 1 2.6 3 5.1
Barrister 3 7.9 2 3.4
East India Company employee or colonial worker 1 2.6 2 3.4 Solicitor 0 0 1 1.7 Physician 0 0 1 1.7 Banker 0 0 1 1.7 Profession unknown 2 5.3 0 0 Total 38 100.0 59 100.0
Illegitimates were slightly more likely than legitimate younger sons to enter military occupations, rather than the learned clerical or legal professions.80 Although the
social exclusivity of both the army and the navy have been debated, both attracted officers from landed backgrounds and the social status of the navy, in particular, increased over the century.81 Significantly, military employment was an opportunity
80 29 percent of illegitimates went into clerical or legal professions vs 32 percent of legitimates;
50 percent of illegitimates went into the army or navy vs 42 percent of legitimates.
81 A.B. Wood, ‘The Limits of Social Mobility: Social Origins and Career Patterns of British
for illegitimates to demonstrate merit and service to their country, allowing them to earn high office, prize money and respect as rewards for military valour without disrupting legitimate inheritance systems. This could cancel out the disadvantages of illegitimacy bestowed at birth and allow them to re-enter the same socio-economic sphere as their legitimate peers in later life. Lord Pembroke hoped that his illegitimate son Augustus Montgomery's part in the lucrative capture of the Dutch island of St Eustatius in 1782 would lead to 'such an increase and accumulation of riches' that he would be promoted, giving him 'a sure fair wind throughout life in his line of profession'.82 George Wyndham and his brothers lacked status as the heirs to
Lord Egremont, but their military ranks gave them secure, publicly recognised identities within a traditionally armigerous class.83 The Wyndhams appear in their
father's famed art collection primarily in their military roles, in paintings specially commissioned following their action in the Napoleonic Wars.84 George's memorial
stone in Petworth church refers to him as 'Colonel George Wyndham', rather than his later title 'Lord Leconfield', and consists primarily of a list of his military achievements, a conscious rendering of character in terms of service to the state. It was much easier for illegitimates to claim promotion and status through merit and selfless service according to pre-existing ideals of gentility, without threatening social order. Five out of the eight illegitimates who were knighted or ennobled had reached the top of military professions, and all the illegitimates who became MPs but were not ennobled had been army officers.85 Other professions, particularly the
pp. 3, 36–43, cited in Evan Wilson, 'Social Background and Promotion Prospects in the Royal Navy, 1775-1815', English Historical Review 131 (2016), pp. 570, 578; N.A.M. Rodger, The
Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain, 1649-1815 (London, 2005), pp. 383, 388, 513;
Cannon, Aristocratic Century, pp. 188-9.
82 PP2, p. 89, Henry, Lord Pembroke to George, Lord Herbert, 14 March 1781. Horace Walpole
similarly hoped of his illegitimate nephew Edward when he demonstrated bravery in battle, that 'I don't see, with this... spirit... and presence of mind, why he should not make a general',
Walpole's Correspondence, vol. 21, pp. 239-40, Horace Walpole to Horace Mann, 9 Sept 1758.
83 French and Rothery, Man's Estate, p. 121. Rodger states similarly that naval rank afforded
public recognition and status, Rodger, Command of the Ocean, p. 387.
84 For example: George Jones, The Battle of Vittoria, 21 June 1813, 1827, oil on canvas, Petworth
House, The Egrement Collection, http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/485064 [accessed 2 February 2018]; George Jones, The Battle of Waterloo, 1815: The Retreat of the French, 1827, oil on canvas, Petworth House, The Egremont Collection,
http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/485066 [accessed 2 February 2018]. Both were hung in the public 'Beauty Room' at Petworth.
85 Those ennobled or knighted included two admirals, one vice-admiral, one general and one
lieutenant-colonel. The other three were landowners. Illegitimates therefore benefited from a general trend in rewarding service with peerages. Between 1802 and 1830, 30 percent of new
clergy, were less lucrative for illegitimates. Although illegitimates entered holy orders in similar proportions to their legitimate counterparts, I have yet to find an illegitimate who became a bishop.86
Illegitimates' success in the military and clergy was partly facilitated through familial patronage. Patronage could considerably improve promotion chances and mitigate any institutional prejudice against illegitimacy. It is very difficult to measure promotion prospects. As Rodger has demonstrated, luck and timing were perhaps the most important variables and cannot easily be compared like-for-like. Individuals born 20 years before a major war were far more likely to be promoted than comparably talented and well-connected individuals in later cohorts.87 Patronage
did, however, ensure that individuals were in the right place at the right time, in postings with influential officers.88 In 1805, eighteen-year-old George Wyndham
thanked his father for 'the arrangements you are so good as to make for my seeing the Campaign on the Continent next Spring... the great advantages to be derived from it are not often to be met with.' By the age of 25 he had served in Ireland, Jamaica and the Peninsula, in aide-de-camp roles that put him in close personal proximity to influential commanders. Their father seems to have counselled his sons into following this path; George promised him that he would improve his French and his handwriting 'so as to render myself capable of holding a staff situation'.89
The dataset and other direct comparisons suggest the Wyndhams were not unusually fortunate. The majority of illegitimate sons in the dataset who entered the