Lost Dukedom of the New England Pierponts

One of the long forgotten stories of the New England Pierponts is how they made an effort to claim a title in England of the Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull. In order to understand this effort a little background information is needed first.

Background on English Titles

There are three categories of individuals in England – commoners, peers, and royalty. Commoners may sometimes be recognized for their contribution to the country or to royals, in which case they are knighted and given the designation of “Sir”. For example, the drummer for the Beatles, Ringo Starr, was recently knighted for his contribution to music and charity and is now officially Sir Richard Starkey MBE (Member of the British Empire). There have been several such individuals in the history of the Pierrepont family (*1). This designation is for an individual only and cannot be passed on.

Peers are given specific titles by the royalty. There are five levels of peerage, from lowest to highest baron, viscount, earl, marquess, and duke. These may also be awarded with (or without) various types of inheritance rules such as “heir male” or “heir general”. In general, the higher the level the more likely that inheritance may be attached to it as well. An individual may have more than one title. Also, the higher levels are often associated with specific properties, so that while someone may be Baron Smith, at a higher level they may be the Earl of Anytown.

Royalty are in another entire category – which I will not attempt to explain here. Royals may also be given various other titles as well. For example, the full title of Prince Charles is: His Royal Highness Prince Charles Phillip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. (How's that for a mouthful!)

Peerage in the Pierpont Family

There had been a number of knights in the Pierrepont family over the centuries. The direct forebear of the peers in the family was Sir Henry Pierrepont (1546-1616) who represented Nottinghamshire in Parliament (*2) and who had succeeded his father, Sir George. Sir Henry's son, Sir Robert Pierpont (1584-1643), was created Viscount Newark and Baron Pierrepont in 1627. In 1628 Robert was further honored when he was made Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull.

The first Earl was succeeded by his son, Henry Pierrepont (1607-1680), who was also created Marquess of Dorchester in 1645. When he died his Marquessate became extinct as it could only pass to male descendants. However, the Earldom and other titles devolved on his nephew, Robert (1660-1682), the son of Henry's younger brother. Robert died unmarried two years later and was succeeded by his younger brother William (1662-1690), who himself died a few years later without issue and he was succeeded by yet another younger brother, Evelyn (1665-1726).

Evelyn received other titles – Marquess of Dorchester in 1706, and then he became the first Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull in 1715. When he died, these titles passed to his grandson, also named Evelyn (1711-1773), as the first Evelyn's son, William (1692-1713) had died in the meantime. All these titles became extinct when the younger Evelyn died without issue in 1773.

When Evelyn's wife died in 1796, Evelyn's estates passed to Charles Medows (1737-1816) who was a great-grandson of the first Duke (Evelyn) through the female line. Charles changed his surname to Pierrepont and was created Baron Pierrepont of Holme Pierrepont in 1796 and later Earl Manvers (*3) in 1806. The title of Earl Manvers passed down through his ancestors until the death of the 6^th Earl, Gervase Evelyn Pierrepont (1881-1955) in 1955.

The New England Pierpont Interest

Note that much of the below is taken from the seminal work on the Pierpont family, Pierrepont Genealogies from Roman Times to 1913 (*4).

The New England Pierponts are descended from a brother of Sir Henry, William (1547-1648). William's son was James (1580-1664), who with his sons John (1616-1682) and Robert (1621-1694) were the first of the Pierpont line to come to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1640s. John's oldest son who survived past childhood was the Rev. James (1659-1714) who moved to New Haven.

The Rev. James believed that he was an heir of his 3rd cousin – at that point Evelyn (1665-1726) who had inherited the Earldom a few years earlier. Because there were so few male descendants in the English branch of the Pierreponts, Rev. James believed that the titles held by Evelyn would eventually pass back up through their common ancestor Sir George. There were no other remaining male descendants from the intervening generations.

Note that even today, few of us have much knowledge of who our 3^rd/4^th cousins are and could accurately recount how we are related. So consider how much more difficult this would have been 300 years ago. Also, there was a good reason for the rift and lack of communication between the English and New England branches of the family. While Sir Henry and his descendants had remained loyal to the Church of England, his brother William was sympathetic to the Puritans and the center of that movement was only a few miles from Nottinghamshire in the town of Scrooby where William Brewster, William Bradford, and many of the Pilgrims came from. This “non-conformity” created a barrier between the descendants of Sir Henry and the descendants of William and all communication between the two halves of the family had ceased at that point.

The following is taken from an article in the magazine of the New England Historical Genealogical Society (*5), but this is based on the earlier work (*4).

Few colonial New England families were as attentive to their ancestral connections in England as the Pierponts, and for none were the stakes greater. Several generations of the American family considered themselves closely related to the aristocratic Pierreponts of Holme Pierrepont in Nottinghamshire, England. On various occasions throughout the eighteenth century, the New Englanders sought to clarify the relationship and establish a closer association with their titled English kinsmen. As the English branch teetered towards extinction in the male line, some of the New England Pierponts believed that they might be successors to the cousins' titles and estates, which after 1715 included the Dukedom of Kingston-upon-Hull.

The Reverend James Pierpont (1659-1714) was the first member of the American family to act upon his real or perceived relationship to the English Pierreponts. The New Haven clergyman recruited colonial agent Jeremiah Dummer in London to assist him in his investigations. In March 1711 Dummer advised Pierpont on progress in his research, stating that “if there be the least appearance of making you a title to any part of the Pierreponts estate in Darby or anywhere else, I'll take the opinion of counsel upon it and transmit you the state of the case.” Dummer further recommended that the minister establish contact with his presumptive cousin by writing the Marquess of Dorchester to congratulate him on a recent marriage in his family. In the meantime, Dummer was engaged to have a Pierpont coat-of-arms painted “by the best hand in London” for his New Haven client. Two months later, Dummer wrote again informing the minster that he had called upon the Marquess of Dorchester (otherwise known as the fifth Earl of Kingston and later created the first Duke of Kingston by George I) to introduce the subject of his American cousins and their shared ancestry. The nobleman, Dummer reported, was living “in great splendor” but was a “bad herald” and could not recount the family history any earlier than the reign of Charles I. Dummer promised to follow up with the nobleman's elderly uncle, perhaps the Baron Pierrepont of Ardglass, who was evidently a more capable family historian. The response to the Reverend James Pierpont's genealogical enquiries by this aged gentleman, if any, remains unrecorded.

The Rev. James died in 1714 without ever having established the link to his then living Pierrepont cousins. His oldest son, also James (1699-1776), tried in the years after his father's death to continue that pursuit of reestablishing connections to his English cousins. The latter years of his life were consumed in this pursuit. James' cousin, John, who was a descendant from another branch of the New England Pierponts also got involved, but that only muddied the water. John actually left his new wife in Roxbury, Massachusetts and went to England where he attempted to ingratiate himself with the Duke. During his several years there he was accused of forging the Dukes signature among other things. When he finally returned to New England he found that his wife had declared him dead and remarried and his creditors wanted to be repaid. After a short time, during which he was told that he was persona-non-grata, he left and returned to England and he was lost track of.

The final Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull died in 1773 without male issue, and James died a few years later, ending this 50+ year effort to prove the male descent which would have enabled James to sail to England and claim the title.

The story continues in (*5):

The Pierpont family in America did not let go of its ducal pretensions easily. Jonathan Pierpont was in 1767 captain of a brig call Duke of Kingston and another descendant, Joseph Pierpont of Boston, was in his lifetime nicknamed “the Duke of Kingston.” Whether guided by caprice or legitimate claim, the New England Pierponts were unsuccessful at every turn in their quest for the dukedom they so clearly coveted. In time, memories of the saga eventually faded, taking on the patina of an unlikely, if not fanciful, family legend.

It was reported that in 1878, [Munson] Edwards Pierrepont, a descendant (great-great-grandson) from Rev. James, went as Minister to England where he was entertained by the then Earl of Manvers (Sydney) in the ancestral home in Nottinghamshire. While there the Earl showed him the musty family records which documented the connection between the two parts of the family. If James, or his agent Drummer, had been able to see them 150 years earlier, then he could have relocated to England and in time perhaps have become the Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull and the Lord of Holme Pierrepont. But alas, the Dukedom had been surrendered upon the death of the last Duke in 1773 and it was a century too late!

Notes:

*1 - https://ramblinrussells.blogspot.com/2018/05/pierpont-genealogy-lords-and-sirs-in.html

*2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Kingston-upon-Hull

*3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Manvers

*4 – Pierrepont Genealogies from Roman Times to 1913, R. Burnham Moffat, 1913.

**5 – D. Brenton Simons, “Dreams of castles: The 'lost' dukedom of the New England Pierponts,” New England Ancestors, 19-20, 24.