Hereditary Peerage question (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:56:48 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Hereditary Peerage question (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Hereditary Peerage question  (Read 8310 times)
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« on: March 14, 2012, 06:00:55 PM »

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.

I think it was 1948 for a trial, 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.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2012, 12:56:28 AM »


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

Oh, yes.

Since elections were mentioned, the Queen cannot vote.  I'm wondering if non-peer members of the Royal Family can vote (the Princess Royal, for example).
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2012, 10:31:20 PM »



Indeed, she's eligible to vote since she's a British citizen. However, as I read on the Monarchy's official website, neither Queen nor high-ranking members of the Royal Family (which certainly includes Princess Royal) does vote, as they believe it would be inappropriate for people supposed to be above any political issues.

She technically is not a British citizen, uniquely.  Others, such as Charles, William and Andrew, do have substantive peerages and a technical seat in the Lords, which precludes them from voting.  The Earl of Snowden was granted one.

Anne, however, never had a substantive peerage.  Possibly excepting Wales, Prince/ess, or Princess Royal are not peerages.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think so.  One had to disclaim the peerage almost as soon as assenting to it.  People, most notably Winston Churchill, do decline peerages.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2012, 10:34:40 PM »



Indeed, she's eligible to vote since she's a British citizen. However, as I read on the Monarchy's official website, neither Queen nor high-ranking members of the Royal Family (which certainly includes Princess Royal) does vote, as they believe it would be inappropriate for people supposed to be above any political issues.

She technically is not a British citizen, uniquely.  Others, such as Charles, William and Andrew, do have substantive peerages and a technical seat in the Lords, which precludes them from voting.  The Earl of Snowden was granted one.

Anne, however, never had a substantive peerage.  Possibly excepting Wales, Prince/ess, or Princess Royal are not peerages.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think so.  One had to disclaim the peerage almost as soon as assenting to it.  People, most notably Winston Churchill, do decline peerages.

I'll take that back; the Queen can vote:  http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/elections-faq-page/
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2012, 10:49:21 PM »




Checking the text of the act, newly created hereditary peers are also stuck, altho I think it is unlikely anymore hereditary peers that are not in the royal family are likely to be created these days.

You can decline a hereditary or life peerage when offered. Sir John Major declined one.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2012, 11:52:37 PM »

Checking the text of the act, newly created hereditary peers are also stuck, altho I think it is unlikely anymore hereditary peers that are not in the royal family are likely to be created these days.

You can decline a hereditary or life peerage when offered. Sir John Major declined one.

I mentioned already that you have to accept a life peerage, and only come the deluge would it be likely that a hereditary peerage could be forced upon someone.  Even if for some bizarre reason one could not refuse a hereditary peerage, I doubt it was a hereditary peerage Major was offered.  The last former PM to be granted a hereditary peerage was Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton.  Wilson, Callaghan, and Thatcher were created as life peers.  Heath was in advanced old age when he left the Commons and would not have been able to serve in the Lords.  Blair one-uped Major by not only declining a peerage, but also a knighthood. Brown is still in Commons.

As I mentioned earlier, Churchill declined a hereditary peerage, a dukedom, and died a commoner.

We might start seeing hereditary peerages being offered as a means of honoring someone, without giving them membership in the Lords
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2012, 09:47:38 AM »



So yes, other than for Royals, that won't participate in politics anyway, the United Kingdom does not award any new hereditary titles.

That might change with the removal of any hereditary basis for selection in the upper house.

Right now, there are a few hereditary peers elected by their fellow hereditary peers in the house (I think 92).  In the 1999 reform, the idea was that this would be transitional and that they would be eliminated.  If that happens, hereditary peers will have no involvement in the membership in the House of Lords.  At that point, you might start seeing hereditary peerages being granted. 

Here are few examples:

1.  The country wishes to honor an individual, but doesn't want the person to vote in the Lords.  The person is created a viscount (or even a hereditary baron), but not granted a life peerage or with it a seat in the Lords.  (Someone such as John Cleese or Stephen Hawkins might fall into that category.)

2.  The country wants to honor an active politician in the Commons.  He is created an earl, but not given a life peerage; he continues to serve in the Commons.  (Heath or Churchill)

3.  A politician wants to retire from politics and doesn't want a seat in the Lords.  She is granted a hereditary peerage, made a viscountess, but without a seat in the Lords. (Major)

4.  Someone with a hereditary peerage might be upgraded for services.  An hereditary viscount might be created an earl for services.  (Marquess of Lothian)

A hereditary peerage may become purely honorary, while a life peerage becomes a purely political appointment.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2012, 12:19:46 AM »



John Cleese turned down a CBE,  Stephen Hawkins has an OAM in addition to his 1992 Olympic Gold Medal in Double Sculls for Australia , and the Stephen Hawking you likely meant has a CH and CBE in addition be a member of the Royal Society.


Cleese turned his down because he thought it was political.  A hereditary peerage may not be regarded as one.  Hawking likewise might receive an additional hone.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

As for The Right Honourable Sir Winston Churchill KG, OM, CH, TD, PC, DL, FRS, Hon. RA and The Right Honourable Sir Edward Heath KG MBE, you can see they too had their fair share of honors attached to their name.
[/quote]

Churchill, and possibly Heath, turned it down because they wish to remain in the Commons; Churchill's some also wanted to pursue an career in the commons.  They could, today, with a hereditary peerage.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You mean The Rt Hon Sir John Major, KG, CH
[/quote]

He turned the peerage because he thought a seat in the Lords was inconsistent with retiring from politics.  A heredity peerage carries no seat in the Lords

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Marquess of Lothian was created in 1701, so I have no idea how you think that has any relevancy to today.  The commander British land forces in the the Falklands War, Sir John Jeremy Moore KCB, OBE, MC, gives a far more likely idea of what sorts of honors are likely to be given for military success today.[/quote]

The Marquess of Lothian was chair of the Conservative Party.

Sir Mike's immediate predecessor was General Michael John Dawson Walker, Baron Walker of Aldringham, GCB, CMG, CBE, ADC, DL

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.



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.

Simply put, if a future government wants to reward someone for exceptional service, but to grant that person any power, they may create the person an hereditary peerage, that carries no political rights.

I would add another possibility, judges. 
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2012, 08:30:45 AM »

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.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2012, 02:11:58 PM »

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.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2012, 11:16:30 PM »

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.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2012, 10:22:13 AM »


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.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2012, 12:47:25 PM »



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
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.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2012, 03:50:38 PM »

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 passé, 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.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2012, 04:12:53 PM »

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.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2012, 08:17:32 AM »

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.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2012, 08:59:56 AM »

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, they could be given a substantial peerage without a seat in the Lords.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 13 queries.