Hereditary Peerage question

[politicus]

From the House of Lords Bill (1999)

Clause 2: Removal of disqualifications in relation to the House of Commons
12.     Under common law (see in particular the case of Re Parliamentary Election for Bristol South East [1964] 2QB 257), peers are prevented from voting in elections to the House of Commons and from standing as a candidate for or being a member of the House of Commons. Clause 2 abolishes these disqualifications.

[politicus]

The traditional idea was that the two houses each represented a different estate (or caste if you will). The House of Commons represented the commoners and The House of Lords represented the lords. No point in letting the lords elect members of HoC which wasn't their representatives.  The two groups also had different legal standing. Until 1963 if a peer committed a crime, he could only be judged by his peers in The House of Lords, not the ordinary courts.

[politicus]

I think it was 1948 for a trial

1948 is correct. Remembered it as part of the Peerage Act of 1963. Should have checked it.

but even in the early 20th Century, there were several notable trials of peers by peers.  Earl Russell for bigamy.  Baron de Clifford for vehicular homicide.

Yes, trial by their peers. Just like I said. You can find cases before 1900 as well.

[politicus]

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.

[politicus]

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.

[politicus]

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.

[politicus]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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