Smithsonian = revenge on UK

[snopes]

James Macie was illegitimate, a stigma which would cling to him for the
rest of his life.

He died wealthy; he died a revered and renowned scientist.

But such were the laws of eighteenth-century England that James Macie was
denied in life the rights of the most ordinary citizen, denied those
rights because of his illegitimacy.

So James Macie held a grudge.

A lasting and bitter grudge for the lifelong deprivation of his honor.
And we, you and I, benefited from that grudge in a most remarkable way!
James Macie was born in France in 1765, the illegitimate son of a British
duke.

With Jim's father more or less out of the picture, the boy's devoted
mother, herself a woman of wealth, returned to England with him and
immediately set about the task of achieving her son's official acceptance.

She got this far:

Jim was decreed a naturalized British subject.

Still, because of his illegitimacy, his rights were restricted at almost
every turn.

He could not enter Parliament.

He could not hold public office.

He could not hold a job under civil service.

He could not enter the Army, nor the Navy, nor the church.

He could not receive any grants of property at the disposal of the Crown.

He grew up knowing those restrictions.

Maybe that accounts for his desire to excel at everything.

Whatever the motivation, he did excel.

In 1786, Jim graduated from Pembroke College and shortly thereafter
launched himself upon a scientific career.

Many sophisticated experiments and published results later, Jim became a
respected scientist.

While his scientific colleagues, no more talented than he, were being
knighted for their accomplishments, Jim was denied that honor.

He was illegitimate.

It is no wonder that Jim Macie held a grudge.

He vowed never to marry, realizing that the stigma of illegitimacy would
pass to his children.

Yet in his lifetime, James Macie conceived another form of immortality.
And the idea in itself would serve as his personal rejection of the
country which rejected him.

When Jim died in 1829, he died a wealthy man with no heirs who could claim
his vast fortune.

In his will he sought revenge on England by leaving all of his money to
the United States.

He had never even visited the United States.

Yet by willing his fortune to us, he disinherited England as it had
disinherited him.

In his will he specified that his money was to be used for the foundation
of an establishment which would increase and diffuse knowledge among men
and which would perpetuate his true family name, denied him at birth.

The name he adopted later in life. The name Smithson. And thus, the gift
he gave us - the establishment which in reality represents the torment of
illegitimacy - is today our country's most magnificent storehouse of
cultural and scientific accomplishment.

It is called the Smithsonian Institution.

[Tootsie Plunkette]

And now... you know... the rest of the story!

[Tootsie Plunkette]

Seriously, I could hear Paul Harvey's voice as I was reading that, and there is a blog that credits it to him, but according to this it's by George Thrasher, from the Sequoia Genealogical Society Newsletter, July 2003.

George, did you really write it?

ETA: A high school in Tennessee that evidently uses Paul Harvey to teach World History (!!!!), also credits it to him (April 6).

[The Goof]

From what I recall nobody knows why Smithson gave his money to the United States, to this day. And he could not join the military because he was illegitimate? Please, maybe he could not be an officer from the start, but come on. Just look at Richard Sharpe. He willed his money to his Nephew anyway, and only if the Nephew was not alive did the money go to the U.S.


http://www.si.edu/about/history.htm

Of course this is in Glurge Gallery so I guess I should not have expected accuracy.

Not able to enter the Military? I rather gather that the Army and Navy 'recruited' heavily from orphanages and homes-for-unmarried-mothers. Of course, that would be for an enlisted position, and then a long slog up the chain to an appointment. But from literature, I understand that, in them days, senior commissions were bought or awarded based on family.

And am I the only person genuinely surprised to find out that the Moral of this glurge wasn't something to do with the evils of nationalised medicine?

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by snopes

Still, because of his illegitimacy, his rights were restricted at almost
every turn.

He could not enter Parliament.

He could not hold public office.

He could not hold a job under civil service.

He could not enter the Army, nor the Navy, nor the church.

He could not receive any grants of property at the disposal of the Crown.

He grew up knowing those restrictions.

That's "every turn," is it? Most people at the time wouldn't have been able to do half those things anyway. And it seems he was allowed to study at Oxford - not at all attainable by an ordinary person at the time, and an advantage that would have put him well above most.

Of course if he'd been the legitimate child of a Duke he'd have had no problems, but a lot of the small number of things complained about there count as not getting the privileges he apparently felt entitled to, rather than being worse off compared to nearly anybody else...

[snopes]

And he could not join the military because he was illegitimate? Please, maybe he could not be an officer from the start, but come on.

Macie was born in 1765 and Britain had press gangs and a quota system until what, about 1815? Somehow I don't think it would have been all that hard for him to have served in the Royal Navy if he'd really wanted to.

[Andrew of Ware]

He certainly could have served in the navy. Although 'prest men' were in the navy, there were conditions about being pressed. Any pressed man had a week to appeal against his pressing. Only people with some naval experience could be pressed. In addition widowers who had dependent children could also get out of being pressed. All pressed men had to go through an interview to make their case against being pressed, which was a form of conscription.

(By the way, the stories of press gangs roaming docks late at night and coshing drunks are exaggerated.)

(Source: several English Heritage events, especially those in 2005 to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar.)

I am wondering whether a lot of the restrictions mentioned in the original story are more to do with Roman Catholics rather than those who are illegitimate.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware

Although 'prest men' were in the navy, there were conditions about being pressed. Any pressed man had a week to appeal against his pressing. Only people with some naval experience could be pressed. In addition widowers who had dependent children could also get out of being pressed. All pressed men had to go through an interview to make their case against being pressed, which was a form of conscription.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. The point wasn't that he surely would have been pressed, but that there was a strong enough need for personnel that he almost certainly wouldn't have been turned away had he volunteered.

[Andrew of Ware]

The Royal Navy was certainly short of volunteers for its ships and anyone who did volunteer would not have been asked if he was illegitimate. (The Quota System was introduced (in 1795) to make up a shortfall in sailors and men would not have been stopped from being part of the quota because they were illegitimate.)

[Tootsie Plunkette]

This article on the Smithsonian's site (From the book, The Smithsonian: 150 Years of Adventure, Discovery, and Wonder by James Conaway, © 1995 Smithsonian Institution) says:

James Smithson was naturalized at age nine, but, because he was born under the bar sinister, he was precluded from entering the army, the church, the civil service, or politics.

[Rhysdux]

Originally Posted by Tootsie Plunkette

This article on the Smithsonian's site (From the book, The Smithsonian: 150 Years of Adventure, Discovery, and Wonder by James Conaway, © 1995 Smithsonian Institution) says:

James Smithson was naturalized at age nine, but, because he was born under the bar sinister, he was precluded from entering the army, the church, the civil service, or politics.

The MP thing certainly isn't right. From thrale.com:

"Henry Thrale's illegitimate son, Jeremiah (Joseph) Crutchley (1745 -
1801) sat as Member of Parliament for Horsham in Sussex. He also owned
Sunningdale Park in Berkshire."

Now, Macie/Smithson certainly couldn't have sat in the House of Lords--you had to be a peer for that, as well as of a certain age and male. And you couldn't be both illegitimate and a peer. But nothing was preventing illegitimate Englishmen from running for the House of Commons, as the case of Jeremiah Crutchley attests.

It was against canon law for illegitimate men to be ordained in the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. But I can't find any proof that the Anglican Church during the Regency behaved in the same way.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by Rhysdux

It was against canon law for illegitimate men to be ordained in the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.

That is kind of ironic.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by Rhysdux

And you couldn't be both illegitimate and a peer.

Was there a prohibition on illegitimate men* being created peers at the time?

*The rare women holding hereditary peerages not being admitted to the House of Lords until, IIRC, the 1950s or 1960s.

[Andrew of Ware]

Illegitimate children could certainly become peers. Kings often made their children peers. For example, one of Charles II's illegitimate sons became James, Duke of Monmouth. If he had been successful at the Battle of Sedgemoor in 1685 (the last pitched battle to be fought in England) he may well have become king.

[Rhysdux]

Bastards could certainly be created peers, and often were given titles, especially if their relatives were royal. And they could be legitimated. Macie/Smithson was legitimated when he was nine. But he still couldn't inherit his father's title, thanks to the way inheritance laws were set up.

[Kizhe]

Originally Posted by Richard W

That's "every turn," is it? Most people at the time wouldn't have been able to do half those things anyway. And it seems he was allowed to study at Oxford - not at all attainable by an ordinary person at the time, and an advantage that would have put him well above most.

Of course if he'd been the legitimate child of a Duke he'd have had no problems, but a lot of the small number of things complained about there count as not getting the privileges he apparently felt entitled to, rather than being worse off compared to nearly anybody else...

Yeah, I was reading this bit and thought "Um, half the population of the country couldn't do those things for the simple reason that they were female." And that's not even mentioning poor people, Catholics and what have you.

[Squirt]

Yeah, as a rich, university educated Fellow of the Royal Society he probably was in the top 1% of the population as far as privilege goes. Of course, if he had been the legitimate son of a Duke, rather than the illegitimate son, he'd have been in the top 0.1%.