Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 29, 2014, 07:03:57 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Hereditary Peerage question
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Hereditary Peerage question  (Read 3613 times)
Lemon flavoured
Newbie
*
Posts: 9
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2012, 07:29:48 am »
Ignore

I personally don't see the problem with creating new hereditary peerages, I just think it's unlikely to happen.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32037
United States


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2012, 08:30:45 am »
Ignore

I personally don't see the problem with creating new hereditary peerages, I just think it's unlikely to happen.

I did see a problem with it, prior to 1999.  Their kids eventually show up and vote the way you don't want them to.  Smiley

Giving someone a title that can be passed on is a nice way of honoring the person.  It doesn't grant them any power (without a seat in the Lords); it gives them a legacy they can pass on to their children.  It doesn't cost anything.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28005
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2012, 10:00:07 am »

And, even today, a peerage does confer a political right, a right to run for and vote in elections for, some seats in the Lords.  The "next phase" was to remove them, which has yet to happen.  I'd expect all hereditary peers to be removed, but, if so, I'd expect hereditary peerages to make a reappearance as an honorary title.

Why?  It makes no sense that it would happen.  As I already pointed out, there is already a hereditary title that confers no political privilege, baronet, which has been granted precisely once in the last half-century, and there is no indication that it is ever likely to be granted again.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32037
United States


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 18, 2012, 02:11:58 pm »
Ignore

And, even today, a peerage does confer a political right, a right to run for and vote in elections for, some seats in the Lords.  The "next phase" was to remove them, which has yet to happen.  I'd expect all hereditary peers to be removed, but, if so, I'd expect hereditary peerages to make a reappearance as an honorary title.

Why?  It makes no sense that it would happen.  As I already pointed out, there is already a hereditary title that confers no political privilege, baronet, which has been granted precisely once in the last half-century, and there is no indication that it is ever likely to be granted again.

I think some of that was due to a worry that hereditary title, that conferred a seat in the Lords, would be back.  The baronetcy was seen as the narrow point of the wedge.  There were come comments to that effect prior to the two viscounts created by Thatcher.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36863


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: March 18, 2012, 02:18:29 pm »
Ignore

I don't think the British do consider it as proper to create any more hereditary titles, whether said title would giving one seat in the Lords or not.

Look at the baronetage: a hereditary title that does not give one seat in the Lords and is not a peerage at all, but they resigned from creating any more Baronets.

Knighthoods and similar distinctions? Those are not hereditary honors.
Logged
politicus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3723
Denmark


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 18, 2012, 02:19:24 pm »
Ignore

The connecting between peerage and upper class status might also be a barrier to reintroducing it.
Hereditary peerages was closely connected to wealth and pedigree. General Roberts was the last "pauper" who was made a lord (after the Boer War) and he received a grant of 100.000 pounds, which was a sh**tload of money back then, so he could live like a lord. After him only wealthy people or members of noble families have been offered hereditary lordships.

(One of the Thatcher viscountcies was an exception to this rule)

Churchill was a grandson of the Duke of Marlborough so he had the standing to be offered a dukedom (Dover or London), but he refused. Which helped reduce the prestige connected with a peerage.

I think that even today there several peers are quite poor there is something strange about making an upper middle class politician/judge/ scientist living in an ordinary house a lord or earl. Their children might also have quite ordinary jobs, so you would have the Earl of Whatsitsname being a librarian or something.

Knighthoods should be sufficient for honouring people. Hardly any European countries ennoble people these days.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2012, 02:43:41 pm by politicus »Logged

Every time I see Denmark I just want to punch it in the face...
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36863


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 18, 2012, 02:27:19 pm »
Ignore

Knighthoods should be sufficient for honouring people. Hardly any European countries ennoble people these days.

Spain does, although I don't know how frequently. For example, Mario Vargas Llosa was created 1st Marquis of Vargas Llosa in 2011 (and, as you can see, the title is hereditary).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think such title gives one any political privileges.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32037
United States


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 18, 2012, 11:16:30 pm »
Ignore

Knighthoods should be sufficient for honouring people. Hardly any European countries ennoble people these days.

Spain does, although I don't know how frequently. For example, Mario Vargas Llosa was created 1st Marquis of Vargas Llosa in 2011 (and, as you can see, the title is hereditary).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think such title gives one any political privileges.

According to Wikipedia, both Belgium and Spain give hereditary ennoblement; Spain uses ennoblement as an honor system, as noted.

I would add that a number of hereditary barons were from humble origins and got their titles by some government work.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
politicus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3723
Denmark


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 19, 2012, 07:07:56 am »
Ignore

Knighthoods should be sufficient for honouring people. Hardly any European countries ennoble people these days.

Spain does, although I don't know how frequently. For example, Mario Vargas Llosa was created 1st Marquis of Vargas Llosa in 2011 (and, as you can see, the title is hereditary).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think such title gives one any political privileges.

According to Wikipedia, both Belgium and Spain give hereditary ennoblement; Spain uses ennoblement as an honor system, as noted.
Which is a clear minority among European monarchies.

I would add that a number of hereditary barons were from humble origins and got their titles by some government work.
I got my info on this from British historian David Cannadine's "The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy" (1990). A very thorough and well written analysis of how the nobility came to lose their position as the most powerfull, glamorous and wealthy in the land. But it is of course a matter of how you define "humble origins". According to Cannadine there was an expectation that people where supposed to live in style and they had to be provided for in some way, if they didn't have the means to do that, thus Roberts grant. After Lloyd George financed the Liberal Party by selling peerages to nouveaux riche types in early 1920s the authorities became very reluctant to give peerages to people not already members of noble families.

Most European monarchies have given up hereditary ennoblement. So Britain is in line with the mainstream trend on this one, but "hardly any" was clearly too strong a phrase.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 07:29:51 am by politicus »Logged

Every time I see Denmark I just want to punch it in the face...
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32037
United States


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 19, 2012, 10:22:13 am »
Ignore


I got my info on this from British historian David Cannadine's "The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy" (1990). A very thorough and well written analysis of how the nobility came to lose their position as the most powerfull, glamorous and wealthy in the land. But it is of course a matter of how you define "humble origins". According to Cannadine there was an expectation that people where supposed to live in style and they had to be provided for in some way, if they didn't have the means to do that, thus Roberts grant. After Lloyd George financed the Liberal Party by selling peerages to nouveaux riche types in early 1920s the authorities became very reluctant to give peerages to people not already members of noble families.

First of all, I think there are some very big differences when you compare other monarchies.  Sweden, do not, effectively, serve as the font of honor for its subjects.  Norway basically abolished nobility in the early 1800's.

I would also disagree with the premise that only people from noble families received peerages.  Attlee is a good example, but a number of the pre-1964 hereditary barons were not of noble families.

A major difference is that, until 1999, hereditary nobility had a limited role in governing the UK.  That might be the key.  You knew that, unless the peer was 80 and unmarried, there was a pretty good chance that his descendants were going to show up and vote.  Atlee's grandson, for example, is a Conservative elected peer.

By giving hereditary peerages, not tied to a seat in the Lords, you can reward someone with something that can be passed on, but has no political effect, at least once all the hereditary peers are removed.


Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
politicus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3723
Denmark


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 19, 2012, 10:41:24 am »
Ignore


I got my info on this from British historian David Cannadine's "The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy" (1990). A very thorough and well written analysis of how the nobility came to lose their position as the most powerfull, glamorous and wealthy in the land. But it is of course a matter of how you define "humble origins". According to Cannadine there was an expectation that people where supposed to live in style and they had to be provided for in some way, if they didn't have the means to do that, thus Roberts grant. After Lloyd George financed the Liberal Party by selling peerages to nouveaux riche types in early 1920s the authorities became very reluctant to give peerages to people not already members of noble families.

First of all, I think there are some very big differences when you compare other monarchies.  Sweden, do not, effectively, serve as the font of honor for its subjects.
Dont know what you mean. Sweden ennobled explorer Sven Hedin as late as 1902. In principle Sweden can still ennoble people, they just choose not to. They have orders as well. The reform in 1975 only changed the major orders

"Apart from the national, official system of orders, Sweden, like most other countries, has a number of official and quasi-official orders, foremost among them being the Order of King Carl XIII, of which The King is Grand Master. The quasi-official orders include the Order of St John in Sweden.
Other recognised orders are the Grand Order of the Amaranth, instituted by Queen Kristina in 1653, and the Order of Innocence, both of which are to be regarded as fraternities/sororities or "social orders".

Several orders - the Order of Carpenters, the Order of Good Templars and the Order of Odd Fellows, for example - work for various scholarly, idealistic and humanitarian purposes".


Norway basically abolished nobility in the early 1800's.
1814 to be precise. But they are the only monarchy without a nobility so thats not really relevant.

I would also disagree with the premise that only people from noble families received peerages.  Attlee is a good example, but a number of the pre-1964 hereditary barons were not of noble families.
Never claimed that only nobles got peerages. Nobles or rich - with a few exceptions.

A major difference is that, until 1999, hereditary nobility had a limited role in governing the UK.  That might be the key.  You knew that, unless the peer was 80 and unmarried, there was a pretty good chance that his descendants were going to show up and vote.  Atlee's grandson, for example, is a Conservative elected peer.
I think the reason is much more likely, that the whole concept of inherited nobility was just too outdated after WW2.

By giving hereditary peerages, not tied to a seat in the Lords, you can reward someone with something that can be passed on, but has no political effect, at least once all the hereditary peers are removed.
True. But why do it? The whole idea of ennoblement is dying out in the rest of Europe. Giving people an order or an honorary title works just fine.


« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 10:54:10 am by politicus »Logged

Every time I see Denmark I just want to punch it in the face...
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32037
United States


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 19, 2012, 12:47:25 pm »
Ignore



Dont know what you mean. Sweden ennobled explorer Sven Hedin as late as 1902. In principle Sweden can still ennoble people, they just choose not to. They have orders as well. The reform in 1975 only changed the major orders

The don't even give knighthoods to Swedes anymore.

Quote
Never claimed that only nobles got peerages. Nobles or rich - with a few exceptions.

Even that isn't accurate.  You had a few (Attlee, for example) who were neither noble nor rich, but were ennobled because of public service.

Quote
I think the reason is much more likely, that the whole concept of inherited nobility was just too outdated after WW2.

You still had them being created a decade later and you had the sitting until 1999.

Quote
True. But why do it? The whole idea of ennoblement is dying out in the rest of Europe. Giving people an order or an honorary title works just fine.


Except it really isn't.  As noted, Spain has done it and there are a few reasons to do it particular to the UK (judges, upgrades, the ability to sit in the Commons).
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
politicus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3723
Denmark


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 19, 2012, 01:36:57 pm »
Ignore

Cmon! You are not reading what I write. Stop deliberately misunderstanding me.



Don't know what you mean. Sweden ennobled explorer Sven Hedin as late as 1902. In principle Sweden can still ennoble people, they just choose not to. They have orders as well. The reform in 1975 only changed the major orders

The don't even give knighthoods to Swedes anymore.
No, not in the so called official orders (Vasa etc.). But see my last post for the relevant orders and honours still in use.

Quote
Never claimed that only nobles got peerages. Nobles or rich - with a few exceptions.

Even that isn't accurate.  You had a few (Attlee, for example) who were neither noble nor rich, but were ennobled because of public service.
Hence the line - with a few exceptions!

Quote
I think the reason is much more likely, that the whole concept of inherited nobility was just too outdated after WW2.

You still had them being created a decade later and you had them sitting until 1999.
Only a few. By 1999 the whole system was already extremely anachronistic.

Quote
True. But why do it? The whole idea of ennoblement is dying out in the rest of Europe. Giving people an order or an honorary title works just fine.

Except it really isn't.  As noted, Spain has done it.
Again. A few exceptions doesn't make a rule. General pattern is the idea is dying out.

and there are a few reasons to do it particular to the UK

Judges:Law lords works fine. Why on earth ennoble judges?

Upgrades:If you mean promoting a viscount to earl or something that is another matter. But many old families prefer a lower title and a higher number to signal they go way back.

The ability to sit in the Commons:What do you mean?? Anybody can sit in the HoC
« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 01:42:42 pm by politicus »Logged

Every time I see Denmark I just want to punch it in the face...
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36863


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 19, 2012, 03:17:15 pm »
Ignore

By giving hereditary peerages, not tied to a seat in the Lords, you can reward someone with something that can be passed on, but has no political effect, at least once all the hereditary peers are removed.

Why would they give any more hereditary titles?

If you want to honor someone, lifetime honour is sufficient enough.

I think it's safe to say that hereditary honours are thing of the past. It's totally passť, J.J. and would probably be unpopular.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32037
United States


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: March 19, 2012, 03:50:38 pm »
Ignore

By giving hereditary peerages, not tied to a seat in the Lords, you can reward someone with something that can be passed on, but has no political effect, at least once all the hereditary peers are removed.

Why would they give any more hereditary titles?

If you want to honor someone, lifetime honour is sufficient enough.

I think it's safe to say that hereditary honours are thing of the past. It's totally passť, J.J. and would probably be unpopular.

Higher precedence.  Able to award judges.  Not limited by number (as some grades of knighthood are).  A way to recognize additional service for people with a title.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32037
United States


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: March 19, 2012, 04:12:53 pm »
Ignore

They had a problem with having the law lords sitting in the House.  It was a treaty violation.

Also, there were about 80 hereditary barons created after 1946, inclusive.

Since 1974-75, Swedish citizens, except for the Royal Family, are no longer eligible for Swedish orders, politicus.  My source is the Swedish Royal Court.  http://www.kungahuset.se/royalcourt/monarchy/orders/theordersinsweden.4.396160511584257f2180005761.html
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Lemon flavoured
Newbie
*
Posts: 9
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2012, 05:01:16 pm »
Ignore

I personally don't see the problem with creating new hereditary peerages, I just think it's unlikely to happen.

I did see a problem with it, prior to 1999.  Their kids eventually show up and vote the way you don't want them to.  Smiley

Giving someone a title that can be passed on is a nice way of honoring the person.  It doesn't grant them any power (without a seat in the Lords); it gives them a legacy they can pass on to their children.  It doesn't cost anything.

Exactly. It's pretty meaningless now there's no guarantee of being able to sit in the Lords (although it's still possible until they remove the by-election thing they do).
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32037
United States


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: April 05, 2012, 08:17:32 am »
Ignore

I personally don't see the problem with creating new hereditary peerages, I just think it's unlikely to happen.

I did see a problem with it, prior to 1999.  Their kids eventually show up and vote the way you don't want them to.  Smiley

Giving someone a title that can be passed on is a nice way of honoring the person.  It doesn't grant them any power (without a seat in the Lords); it gives them a legacy they can pass on to their children.  It doesn't cost anything.

Exactly. It's pretty meaningless now there's no guarantee of being able to sit in the Lords (although it's still possible until they remove the by-election thing they do).

They could go the final step and remove the elected hereditary peers, but establish hereditary peerages as a title of honor (or honour, as the case may be).  If you (and "you" is ultimately the sovereign on the advice of the PM) really want to honor someone, you can give them an earldom and a life peerage.  When the First Earl dies, his son becomes the Second Earl, but not a seat in the Lords.  You honor the person, your honor of him extends beyond life (or can, at least), but you don't give any of those heirs any political power (though they could earn it).
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Gary J
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 82
United Kingdom
View Profile
« Reply #43 on: July 07, 2012, 03:57:21 pm »
Ignore

There is a government bill, now before the House of Commons, which would end the link between having a peerage (whether hereditary or for life) and being a member of the House of Lords. It is intended to have 80% elected and 20% appointed members, serving a nonrenewable 15 year term. In addition there would be a reduced number of 12 Church of England prelates and some ministerial members.

A provision of the bill would allow life peers to disclaim their title.

The bill has its second reading on Tuesday 10th July.

In 2009 serving judges were removed from the House of Lords, when the Supreme Court took over the House's judicial role. Supreme Court justices, who are peers, are not able to sit in the existing House of Lords until they retire from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices, who are not peers, are given a judicial title of Lord (as has happened with the Scottish judiciary for centuries) without being made peers.

Whatever the existing rules and precedents may be about peerages, they can always be changed for the future.
Logged
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72080
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: July 07, 2012, 10:03:26 pm »
Ignore

Cmon! You are not reading what I write. Stop deliberately misunderstanding me.

Telling J. J. to stop doing that is like telling a fish to stop swimming.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32037
United States


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: July 09, 2012, 08:59:56 am »
Ignore

There is a government bill, now before the House of Commons, which would end the link between having a peerage (whether hereditary or for life) and being a member of the House of Lords. It is intended to have 80% elected and 20% appointed members, serving a nonrenewable 15 year term. In addition there would be a reduced number of 12 Church of England prelates and some ministerial members.

A provision of the bill would allow life peers to disclaim their title.

I like this, with the exception of the term limit.  There are a few members of the Lords that are chosen for their expertize in specific fields (usually non-political fields).  I think they could easily still be valuable as members 3-4 decades later.

Quote

In 2009 serving judges were removed from the House of Lords, when the Supreme Court took over the House's judicial role. Supreme Court justices, who are peers, are not able to sit in the existing House of Lords until they retire from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices, who are not peers, are given a judicial title of Lord (as has happened with the Scottish judiciary for centuries) without being made peers.



And, they could be given a substantial peerage without a seat in the Lords.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines