Duke Refused to Sell Land for Embassy
List of All 'Life in the UK' Articles
By BRIAN WILSON
UK Travel Correspondent
Special to North Palm Beach Life
What was unique about the "old" USA embassy in London?
I’m taking about the site at Grosvenor Square, not the new one at Nine Elms London.
After WW2, the USA wanted to build a new embassy and bring all the activities under one roof. They sited on Grosvenor Square.
The Duke of Westminster’s family had owned the land for hundreds of years, so the USA Ambassador met up with the Duke to buy the land.
There was only one problem – and it was a big one – the Duke’s family had one rule: "We do not sell land; we will lease it."
Now, all Embassies need to own the land on which to build, so they can claim it as "sovereign territory" -- i.e. outside the control of the host country
After much discussion, the Duke would not change his position – he would lease the land, but no sale. The Duke, who had fought in the war, wanted to say "Thank you" to the USA by offering the land on a long lease at a low rent.
The story goes that, in a last desperate attempt to change the Duke’s mind, he was invited to meet the President, where, sitting in the Oval Office, the Duke noted that, before the War of Independence his family owned a number of Estates in the USA, but his family had not received any recompense after the war ended. "If only …."’
There seemed to be an opening – a breakthrough – but the Duke was leading them on – for, when asked for the names of these Estates, it seemed that they included vast tracts of Maine, New York and Florida.
So, in the end the Grosvenor Square Embassy was sited on land, still owned by the Duke of Westminster, but given to the USA on a 999-year lease at a "peppercorn rent" (usually set at £10 - yes £10 or $13 per year).
Now there are some people who would say that the Duke of Westminster "stole" the land in Florida from the Spanish, who in turn had stolen it from the French, who would have taken it from the indigenous peoples.
Mind you, if you look at UK History – the Romans took over land by force – then the Saxons – then the Danes (Vikings) - then the Normans (they were not French – they were ex-Vikings -- i.e. people from the "North."
What ever is the case – it just shows the close historical links between us both.
UK Travel Correspondent
Special to North Palm Beach Life
What was unique about the "old" USA embassy in London?
I’m taking about the site at Grosvenor Square, not the new one at Nine Elms London.
After WW2, the USA wanted to build a new embassy and bring all the activities under one roof. They sited on Grosvenor Square.
The Duke of Westminster’s family had owned the land for hundreds of years, so the USA Ambassador met up with the Duke to buy the land.
There was only one problem – and it was a big one – the Duke’s family had one rule: "We do not sell land; we will lease it."
Now, all Embassies need to own the land on which to build, so they can claim it as "sovereign territory" -- i.e. outside the control of the host country
After much discussion, the Duke would not change his position – he would lease the land, but no sale. The Duke, who had fought in the war, wanted to say "Thank you" to the USA by offering the land on a long lease at a low rent.
The story goes that, in a last desperate attempt to change the Duke’s mind, he was invited to meet the President, where, sitting in the Oval Office, the Duke noted that, before the War of Independence his family owned a number of Estates in the USA, but his family had not received any recompense after the war ended. "If only …."’
There seemed to be an opening – a breakthrough – but the Duke was leading them on – for, when asked for the names of these Estates, it seemed that they included vast tracts of Maine, New York and Florida.
So, in the end the Grosvenor Square Embassy was sited on land, still owned by the Duke of Westminster, but given to the USA on a 999-year lease at a "peppercorn rent" (usually set at £10 - yes £10 or $13 per year).
Now there are some people who would say that the Duke of Westminster "stole" the land in Florida from the Spanish, who in turn had stolen it from the French, who would have taken it from the indigenous peoples.
Mind you, if you look at UK History – the Romans took over land by force – then the Saxons – then the Danes (Vikings) - then the Normans (they were not French – they were ex-Vikings -- i.e. people from the "North."
What ever is the case – it just shows the close historical links between us both.
