STILL THE TOP CLASS

Britain's aristocracy did not decline and fall in our century. On the contrary, it rose and rose — doing well

even under Labour; says John Martin Robinson To the historian, the fascinating thing is not that the graph continued downwards after the first world war, but the way in which the aristocracy rallied in the 20th century: they have secured their estates and great houses, maintained some degree of political influence in the Lords, in the Commons and at constituency level, and continued to fulfil their traditional ceremo- nial and public role in the counties, as well as developing new areas of activity in the city, 'the arts', as patrons of charities, and generally serving as model leaders of civil society.

The late-19th-century prophecies of doom have not been fulfilled. The first world war, while involving great personal heroism and tragedy (one in seven officers was killed), had little long-term effect. Only three titles were extinguished: Ribblesdale, an obscure baronetcy, and the brand-new marquessate of Lincolnshire (in the latter case, the older Carrington title was carried on). Though a great deal of land was put on the market after 1918, this was not to pay death duties incurred as a result of the war (as often claimed), but rather to take advantage of a short-term high in land prices; the proceeds were reinvested in more lucrative urban and commercial property or stocks and shares.

The historic estates remained and some, like Badminton, Floors or Lowther, have substantially increased in size during the 20th century. In the 1990s, most counties contain half a dozen large estates and between 50 and 100 lesser ones. In the 1920s the sale of land, far from being a dis- solution, was part of a general policy of re- organising finances which enabled most of the great families to survive through all the vicissitudes of the 20th century. For exam- ple, the 9th Duke of Devonshire was much richer in the 1920s than his uncle and grandfather had been in the 19th century, thanks to a ruthless policy of clearing over- drafts and building up a world-wide invest- ment portfolio, while his estates were maintained at 100,000 acres. Several other dukes have been equally successful in sus- taining their territorial empires, notably the Northumberlands and Buccleuchs. Molly Duchess of Buccleuch a few years ago was overheard to remark, while a guest was admiring the distant view, 'Yes, it all belongs to us. As far as the eye can see, indeed a great deal further.'

As for 'plutocracy', far from being a threat, the easy rise of the new rich has always been the greatest strength of the British social system. From the Middle Ages onwards, the upper class has allied itself closely with contemporary wealth and been reinforced by a constant intake of newcom- ers. Its attitude has been similar to that of Talleyrand, as exemplified by the famous story of a conversa- tion held with his valet during a period of social unrest: 'I see our side is winning.'

`Which side is that, sir?'

`I'll tell you in the morning.'

In the first 30 years of the 20th century, nearly every sig- nificant Victorian new-rich family was successfully absorbed into the heart of the traditional aristocracy, acquir- ing landed estates, peerages, arms and country houses. Today, the Iveaghs, Leverhul- mes, Dulvertons, Cowdrays, Joiceys, Rotherwicks, Somer- leytons and their ilk are, two or three generations on, among the grandest and richest of peers with large acreages in England and Scotland, and encompassing KGs, Lord Lieutenants and a Master of the Horse among their numbers; through inter- marriage they have also reinvigorated many older lines. The late Lord Rotherwick was the epitome of aristocratic hauteur. On being told that an acquaintance had bought a home with an acre and a half of garden, he remarked, 'Can one fit a house into an acre and a half?'

The second world war was the upper class's 'finest hour'. They held the most senior Cabinet posts, from prime minister downwards, as well as playing a key role in the army. (The second world war generals were much more blue-blooded, and more successful, than their first world war coun- terparts.) Their houses also contributed to the war effort, as hospitals, barracks, HQs for spooks and premises for evacuated schools. The militarisation of the whole population reinforced the position of the aristocracy as an hereditary officer caste, and the burnished status achieved lingered on for a generation. The army was also extremely efficient in producing 'new gen- try'. When I was a child, it was a joke that everybody in the country was called `Colonel and the Hon. Mrs.. . . '

Their 'good war' was a moral credit when it came to negotiating with Major Attlee's Labour government in 1945. The Labour Party did not, in any case, share the Liber- als' obsessive hatred of landowners; Labour's mission was primarily urban, and envisaged the nationalisation of antiquated heavy industry (`the sources of production') rather than the landed bedrock of the aris- tocracy. Against the odds, the Labour interlude between 1945 and 1950 saved the country house, British farming and the landed estate. It also provided a bonus by buying out decaying assets like coalmines at top-of-the-market, war-inflated prices: £310 million was provided after 1947 for coal compensation, much of which went to the aristocracy. The Londonderrys, for instance, received over £1 million (tax- free) for their collieries, the Butes £1.5 mil- lion and the Portlands over £2 million.

Attlee's government commissioned the Gowers Report, which investigated ways of saving the country house and led to the Historic Buildings Council (repair grants), as well as setting up the Land Fund which helped finance the National Trust country house scheme. Labour maintained and fur- ther developed the wartime system of sub- sidies and protection for agriculture which has continued unabated ever since, latterly thanks to the CAP. Labour also introduced a comprehensive system of tax relief, rebates and roll-over for agricultural land, thus laying the foundation for the revival of the country house and landed estate.

The 1950s and 1960s saw the high point of 20th-century aristocratic revival, both financially and politically, a revival that was heralded by the magnificent feudal cere- monial of the Queen's coronation (like all coronations based on Richard II's Liber Regalis, the manuscript in the library of Westminster Abbey. This book is a compi- lation of ceremonies deriving from Charle- magne). It was fuelled by a steady rise in the stock market and a property boom, as well as farming prosperity. Conservative rule between 1951 and 1964 saw four more or less aristocratic prime ministers with their relations well represented at all levels of government from Cabinet to junior min- isters. Chatsworth and Hatfield were once again the 'power houses' they had been in the 19th century. The Devonshires made the decision to revive and move back into Chatsworth in 1955; the Duke of Bedford returned to Woburn in the same year.

Everywhere in the late 1950s and 1960s, country houses were modernised and redecorated, very often by John Fowler, who created an internationally admired style of interior decoration in the process. In addition to restoring old houses, tradi- tional landowners built over 200 complete- ly new country houses in these years, unusually in neo-Georgian style, and laid out some of the largest and finest gardens ever created in England. 'Wonderful, isn't it? All our own work,' said one such landowner with a wave of the hand towards plentiful lime avenues, cascades, box-edged parterres and Gothic follies.

All this was the fruit of a change of poli- cy and a coming to terms with universal suffrage, which it was feared might have some effect on an essentially oligarchical political system.

After their outmanoeuvring by the Liber- als at the beginning of the century, when Lloyd George had tried to make dukes look like selfish dinosaurs, the aristocracy adopted a remarkably successful camou- flage policy. Emphasising their personal poverty and the dire effects of 'death duties', they joined up with the middle classes in pressure groups to save their heartlands — their seats and estates — for the general good. Thus the National Trust, which had been started by a bunch of Fabi- an cranks, branched out under the leader- ship of Lords Zetland, Esher and Crawford to help save the country house. The aris- tocracy became the (unpaid) champions of the 'national heritage'.

In the same way, the CLA (originally the Central, now the Country, Landowners' Association) had got nowhere when origi- nally founded in 1907, but by increasing its membership to include many smaller owner-occupiers, as well as large landown- ers, it numbered over 40,000 by the 1940s and proved highly successful in fighting off land nationalisation and securing special treatment for farmers.

The worth of this indirect political approach was proved by the rout of the short-lived, marginal Labour government of 1974. Denis Healey's proposed introduc- tion of a wealth tax was effectively coun- tered by the Destruction of the Country House exhibition at the V&A — a brilliant propaganda exercise. Roy Strong pointed out that 'death duties and capital gains tax, let alone the threatened forms of wealth and inheritance taxes, spell the final ruin'.

Mrs Thatcher, when she came to power, was personally agnostic about the landed aristocracy (though a third of her MPs were 'farmers' and half her first Cabinet was composed of landowners), but her policies might have been tailored to their particular advantage, and greatly enriched them. Those with the most capital, the best education and a general independence of mind were likely to do well out of the encouragement of entrepreneurial activity, the cutting of taxes and being left to 'stand on their own feet', and this has proved to be the case. While some have come crop- pers, like the Lovats (whose panache and guts sadly were not matched by commensu- rate business ability), others have made notable successes of their estates and com- mercial interests.

Much of the character and potency of the aristocracy in the 1990s is derived from its close connection with certain institutions, notably the Court and the City. The abdica- tion of Edward VIII (with his café society cronies) and the succession of the conserva- tive George VI and his Bowes-Lyon consort cemented an affiance between the monarch and the Anglo-Scottish aristocracy which has survived throughout the present reign to the reciprocal advantage of both parties, the Crown gaining a court of loyal, reliable tra- ditionalists, and the aristocracy a continuing focus and point.

Equally significant has been their involve- ment in the City. In the late 19th century only a handful of peers were directors of public companies. Now, many are involved in banks, the 'leisure industry' and assorted financial institutions. They have played a key role in the creation of the post-industrial British economy. The world of the City and the Court are closely interrelated, and there is an easy toing and froing between them. A typical example is Earl Cairns, who is chair- man of BAT Industries, as well as receiver- general of the Duchy of Cornwall, and whose father was Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps and an extra equerry. Another exam- ple is the Earl of Airlie who retired as chair- man of Schroders to become Lord Chamberlain. Lord Airlie is the epitome of the late 20th-century aristocrat: the owner of 30,000 acres and Airlie and Cortachie Cas- tles, head of the Royal Household, a banker, Lord Lieutenant of his county, JP, chancellor of his local university and chairman of vari- ous charities.

The patronage of good causes and local societies is a characteristic 20th-century aristocratic phenomenon. As Frank Prochaska has shown in his brilliant book, Royal Bounty: the Making of a Welfare Monarchy (Yale, 1995), the Victorian and modern royal family created a new popu- lar function for itself as patron of the nation's charities. The aristocracy fol- lowed in royal footsteps, acting at a local level as a focus for charitable activity, pro- viding feudal hierarchy with a new role in the welfare state. Generally, such endeav- our goes unremarked and, like most aspects of contemporary aristocratic life, deliberately surfaces only in obituaries and records of memorial services. For instance, at the memorial service of Lavinia Duchess of Norfolk in March this year, the representatives of her charities had to be restricted to 1,000 persons the edited list filled two columns of the Daily Telegraph. All the vestigial power, privilages and prestige which remained with the British aristocracy in 1914 remain with them today.

The author is writing a book about the aris- tocracy in the 20th century.