Hereditary Peerage question

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Can a British hereditary peer, that was denied sitting in the House of Lords (as number of sitting hereditary peers in the Lords was greatly limited), be elected to the House of Commons and serve there instead?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

Wow... peers were forbidden from not only sitting in Commons (which is understandable), but also from voting in the election?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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).

I'm fairly sure they can, they just don't. In fact, IIRC the Queen could, in theory, vote, but clearly she doesn't.

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.

IMO they are taking it too far. Naturally, it would be highly inappropriate for any member of the Royal Family to not only make political statements, but to give a slightest indication of their preferences, but casting a secret ballot and not telling anyone how they did vote won't be a problem, as far as I'm concerned.

There was also a provision in effect from 1963 to 1999 for a lord to disclaim his peerage in order to be eligible for the Commons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage_Act_1963#List_of_disclaimed_peerages

Can a life peer disclaim her/his peerage too? Or once named a life peer, one stucks with the Lords forever?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

Macmillan was not only the last PM created a hereditary peer, but also the last person created a hereditary peer in general (excluding certain members of the royal family). And the most recent non-royal to receive a hereditary title was Denis Thatcher in 1991 (Baronetage is, of course, below peerage).

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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

By the way, the future king Edward VII did broke a precedent by voting for the 1884 Representation of the People Bill in the House of Lords.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.