Book Review

Allen, Danielle. Radical Duke: How One Aristocrat – and the American Revolution – Transformed Britain. Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2026.

The rise of popular sovereignty, or rule by the people rather than a monarch, is typically associated with the rebel patriots of the American Revolution. Danielle Allen, in her new book, argues that the “theory of revolution and calls for popular sovereignty” started in Britain before spreading to America. Its chief proponent was a lesser-known aristocrat, Charles Lennox, the Third Duke of Richmond. The wealthy duke funded prominent proponents of democratic reforms in Britain, led public relations campaigns attacking the monarchy, and introduced proposals for universal male suffrage in the House of Lords.

While working on a project to trace all known copies of the Declaration of Independence published in its first fifty years, the Harvard professor “stumbled upon a large-scale parchment copy in the West Sussex Record Office.” Her team concluded that it had been given to the Duke of Richmond by Thomas Paine. This discovery piqued Allen’s interest in the little-remembered duke and his relationship with Paine.

One reason the Duke of Richmond is not better known for his revolutionary contributions is that he ordered the burning of his personal papers and correspondence upon his death. Allen recovered his story through impressive detective work. She scoured a 9,000-volume library at the duke’s ancestral home, Goodwood, for marginalia and other hints of Richmond’s political thinking. Among other discoveries, she established the authorship of a pamphlet called The Juryman’s Touchstone, previously attributed to a pseudonym Junius. The version in the duke’s library contains a dedication in Thomas Paine’s handwriting confirming the origin.

The moniker “Radical Duke” derives from three progressive contributions to reform of the British political system. First, he arranged for and financially supported the publication of 62 letters, plus a preface and a dedication, all attributed to the pseudonym Junius, which espoused far-reaching political reforms (p. 125). Advanced computer analysis identifies five authors as having a hand in parts of the letters: Thomas Paine (34), James Burgh (17), Edmund Burke (15), Philip Francis (11), and John Wilkes (10). These letters attacked King George III for eroding the people’s rights (p. 130). The Junius writers also criticized Parliament for malfunctioning and failing to properly represent British citizens. The author asserts that Paine cut his teeth as a radical by playing the role of Junius, thereby honing his political discourse and leading to his authorship of Common Sense in 1776. Allen concludes that the Junius letters, along with the Federalist Papers, were the most impactful political statements of their age (p. 103).

Second, the Duke of Richmond offered a plan for British electoral reform. Under current law, there were Parliamentary districts with few people (rotten boroughs), and some large towns, like Manchester, had no representation. Further, fewer than 3% of British citizens could vote in Parliamentary elections. The duke’s solution conferred voting rights to all male residents over the age of 21. Under his plan, there would be specially defined electoral districts encompassing one thousand voters. Each district would elect one member of Parliament (p. 239-40). On 2 June 1780, the Third Duke of Richmond rose in the House of Lords to propose his radical democratic plan. Allen purports that his plan was the first in Europe and “quite possibly the first in the modern world” (p. 252).[i] Unfortunately, at the same time, anti-Catholic riots encompassing 14,000 people engulfed London. The destructive mob violence ended consideration of Richmond’s plan. John Adams, then minister plenipotentiary in France, perceived Britain “at the Brink of a Civil War” (p. 250-51).

As a senior statesman, the Duke of Richmond’s third major contribution occurred in 1804. He penned two tracts. First, he advocated against a large standing army and for a well-established militia to defend against foreign invasion. Second, he penned an essay on political goals and representation. He advocated the pursuit of happiness, as in the US Declaration of Independence. Richmond believed that perfect happiness was unachievable. Practicing clear-eyed realism, Richmond advocated constant striving for protections for the people (p. 351). The author concludes that the duke’s forty-five years of advocacy earned him the title of the “father of universal suffrage” (p. 337).

While praising the duke’s lifelong quest for universal suffrage, Allen does not offer a hagiographic account. She puts the Duke of Richmond’s foibles front and center. Over the years, the duke changed his views on the monarchy to be more supportive and feathered his family’s finances through political rewards and self-dealing. From a personal perspective, the duke’s family life was equally awkward. He feuded with siblings, engaged in extramarital affairs, and practiced nepotism.

Independence-minded Americans recognized the Third Duke of Richmond’s support for their cause. At the opening dinner of the First Continental Congress, delegates toasted the duke, acknowledging him as America’s friend (p. 191). Later, John Adams echoed the duke’s assertion that “the end of all civil regimen, is the happiness and prosperity of the governed” in the Massachusetts delegate’s 1776 Thoughts on Government, which articulated principles for the formation of the state governments (p. 192). The Duke of Richmond also maintained that Americans could not be subdued by force (p. 203). In March 1778, Richmond became the first member of the House of Lords to accept American independence (p. 224).

The Duke of Richmond, noted for his bluntness, paid a political price for his advocacy of American independence and his visionary support for Parliament reform and expanded male suffrage (p. 287). Although he served as an ambassador and in several cabinets, he never reached the highest level of government service. However, Allen argues that the Duke of Richmond left an important legacy. His concepts of shorter parliamentary terms (annual rather than seven-year) and universal suffrage were well ahead of their time. Britain did not implement universal male suffrage until 1918, and women did not gain the vote until 1928. 

I highly recommend the Radical Duke to readers interested in the American Revolution and late-eighteenth-century politics. Often, the American Revolution is written from a North American perspective. Allen makes a compelling case that understanding the part of the British Empire that remained loyal to the King and a constitutional monarchy is as important as understanding what happened in the thirteen rebelling colonies. Richmond’s team of radicals, including Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and John Wilkes, provided Americans with strong arguments for either equal citizenship or independence.

---

[i] The 1777 Vermont Constitution extended suffrage to all male inhabitants of voting age.