Talk:Hereditary peer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Featured Article candidacy comments (promoted)

[edit] Hereditary peer

(Uncontested -- July 7)

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth

  • Support 172 05:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I like several of the other peerage-related articles too. 81.168.80.170 19:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - seems rather complete and should do fine alongside the already FA peerage article (other articles in the series also look like they might be featurable). --mav 06:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support this Emsworth work, too. James F. (talk)

[edit] Prince?

With Reference to Prince as Degree within the British Peerage

"It is also possible to suggest that a principality is a peerage dignity."

Whereas it possible to suggest,it is is quite wrong. There are five degrees of the British peerage, no more, no less.

Of course I understand the source of confusion as the House of Lords Act 1999 states that "In this Act "hereditary peerage" includes the principality of Wales and the earldom of Chester." But note that whilst that may be the case for "this Act" it is not otherwise the case.

To explain further.

If you examine the Explanatory Notes produced in conjunction with the original House Of Lords Bill and in particular the Commentary on Clauses, you will see that it includes the following text.

(See http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmbills/034/en/99034x--.htm)

Clause 1: Exclusion of hereditary peers

5. The main provision of the Bill ends membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage....

6. The exclusion from membership applies to all those who are members of the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage, including -

members of the Royal Family who have the right to sit and vote in the House (the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of York, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent);

Here the authors of the bill are expressing their intentions as regards the legislation they wish enacted. Specifically they wish to ensure that no member of the Royal Family is a member of the House of Lords and since the only member of the royal family not known under a peerage dignity is the Prince of Wales it is felt necessary to include the Principality of Wales within the definition of an hereditary peerage for the purposes of the Act.

This is simply a typical belt and braces approach to legislation. The authors wished to ensure that no Prince of Wales later emerged and claimed that he was enitled to a seat in the House of Lords on the basis that he was not named in the act.

The whole point is this. The House of Lords Act 1999 does not support the contention that Prince is a degree within the British Peerage but quite the reverse, as if that where the case it would not have been neccessary to the specific clause that re-defined what constituted an herditary peerage.

I hope that is clear. Unfortunately it is neccessary to stamp on this sort of amateurish nonsense as otherwise it percolates all over the internet and generates its own validity through constant repetition.

ProfSmith

As for the House of Lords Act 1999, I don't think it has any bearing on the issue. If the Principality of Wales were indeed a peerage dignity, the Act would have to be so worded to ensure that it is not treated as a life peerage dignity.
It appears that even the editors of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica seem to have got this wrong, then: "Until recent years the title prince was never conferred on anybody except the heir-apparent to the Crown, and his principality is a peerage." It was on the basis of this remark—not on the basis of confusion caused by the House of Lords Act—that the reference to the Principality of Wales had been added.

-- Emsworth 14:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ISTM that this paragraph should be clarified, at least, to indicate that although some authorities consider the Principality of Wales to be a peerage (and the point is moot, since I don't believe anyone has been granted this title in modern times who was not already a Duke), other members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the title "Prince" are not considered hereditary peers by virtue of that title. RussBlau 17:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Writs of Acceleration

Before peeresses were permitted to attend the House of Lords, would the heir-apparent of a countess or duchess suo jure be eligible for a writ of acceleration? --Anglius 19:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why not, as long as the countess or duchess had a lower peerage dignity available to be accelerated. -- Emsworth 19:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I thank you, Lord Emsworth. --Anglius 19:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If the father is a duke and possesses a subsidary marquisate and earldom but no barony, would his eldest son be able to receive a writ of acceleration as the earl, provided that it is not of the main title, Lord Emsworth? I had assumed that only baronies are created by writ. --Anglius 20:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd imagine it would be theoretically possible, but as far as I'm aware it's never happened (I don't know of any instance of anyone being summoned by writ of acceleration even in a viscountcy). However, in such a situation I think it would be far more likely that the heir apparent in question would simply be created a baron. Proteus (Talk) 21:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your answer, Mr. Tilman. --Anglius 23:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I hope that you would not mind my inquiry, Mr. Tilman, but could the son of a viscount be able to receive a writ of acceleration if his father possesses more than one subsidary barony? --Anglius 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes. The only requirement for the procedure is that the father possesses more than one peerage. There has even been a case where the son of a baron who held two baronies was summoned in the junior of the two. Proteus (Talk) 09:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I thank you, sir --Anglius 01:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Writ of Summons Error?

I am a clueless newbie, so I am not going to attempt to address this one myself. However, writ of summons is included in this article as a link...and it just takes you back to the top of this article. This doesn't seem right. How can it be fixed? -- Talvin

The 'link' could be omitted, sir. --Anglius 20:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
It's gone.Dave 03:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two questions

I have two questions. The answer to the first should probably be incoprporated in the article. The answer to the second is only speculation. I don't know the answer to either.

1) Now that the Labour Government has sabotaged the hereditary peerage's right to sit in the House of Lords, how is the "authenticity" of any claimant to an hereditary peerage to be validated? Previously, of course, if the Sovereign summoned you, you must be a peer.

2) Given the the anti-aristocratic labour government has made the hereditary peerage politically impotent, as a group, is the next Conservative government likely to re-introduce them? After all they will no longer affect political balance.

Avalon 01:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the first question, I don't think that the 1999 Act will affect it–the Queen still terminates an abeyance now and then, and determining succession is, more than anything else, a question of genealogy. I think David can answer this better. Regarding the second point, there hasn't been a new non-royal hereditary creation since the mid-80's, and regular creations ceased once Harold Wilson began his first premiership. That is to say, they've been a dead letter for a generation, something that Thatcher tried--but failed--to reverse. Reintroducing hereditary peerages would be something that the present Conservative leadership (Cameron) would preseumably want to avoid. Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting me - how flattering that I'm suggested as a specialist answerer of such questions! I've no doubt some people may take note of that.
The answer to the first question is that (possibly surprisingly) nothing has changed. New hereditary peers continue to petition the House of Lords claiming to have succeeded to the peerage. The House refers the petition to the Committee on Privileges, which after a brief investigation (a few weeks) reports back through the Lord Chancellor that they have established their claim. The only change since 1999 is that instead of sending a writ of summons, the House orders the Clerk of the Parliaments to enter them on the register of hereditary peers maintained for the purposes of byelections. The committee's deliberations are in private but the petition and the outcome are recorded in the Minutes of the House of Lords. Here is an example of a petition from the new Lord Abinger, and of the granting of the new Viscount of Oxfuird's claim.
I'm not a complete expert on this but as I understand it, it's not quite true to say that anyone receiving a Writ of Summons was a peer. The creation of Baronies by writ was a common practice but eventually died out. Lord Mayhew of Twysden challenged the 1999 reform on the grounds that the Writ of Summons entitled the recipient to membership of the House of Lords for the whole Parliament. This challenge was rejected (details of reasoning here).
I disagree. I don't think there is any legal dispute except in the earliest times that the result of someone without a peerage receiving a writ and taking their seat was to make them a peer. However the rulings that may be muddying the waters are the one you mention and much more importantly the ruling on Irish peers. [The latter claim based that if Irish peers retained their writs after the end of the union and the end of the mechanism to elect new peers then those remaning must be attending by some other right than as Irish representative peers so it must be by a 'new' writ so a new peerage was created.] Both cases failed because the the writ only creates a peerage where none already exists. So any peer called in their extant title needs no new peerage. Alci12 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, it is not currently part of the Conservative Party's programme to begin to create additional hereditary honours. Given the way the British constitution works, there is no way of actually abolishing the power for good, so conceivably any future government could decide to do so. David | Talk 13:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of hereditary peers

We have a 1999 table outlining the number of hereditary peers. Can someone compile a 2005 (or 2006) table. It would be interesting to see the rate of attrition (particularly since 1964 if someone can pull out an old Whittiker's Almanac). Homey 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption?

The article states that, "Also, it is necessary for English patents to include limitation "of the body", as in "heirs-male of the body". The limitation indicates that only lineal descendants of the original peer may succeed to the peerage." Does that mean that adopted sons could not inherit the title? nmw 00:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Possibly such a rule was adopted instituted to discourage childless peers from adopting someone in exchange for tangible consideration. —Tamfang 04:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The article was wrong. There is not a common law assumption that heirs general applied in the transmission of non-Scottish peerages. There are cases where the patent is heirs general, not of the body, but these have (with the one exception of the Earl of Devon in 1831 where the Cmtee for Privilages had too liquid a lunch and granted the claim) been denied. The last case was the Scrope Earldom in 1862 where the CfP restated that for peerages heirs general doesn't exist in English law. You must think of the langauage as mere form save where it grants specific and intentional exceptions. Common law assumes that peerages descend to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten and will continue to assume so even if a word is omitted from the patent. It takes a very very clear wording to counter that presumption and the CFP has refused claims where the patent appears to violate peerage law by say creating shifting remainders.
With regard to adoption or illegitimacy, the law regarded and regards (bar Scotland) both as not being heirs so having no right to inherit. Until very recently they had no rights but by royal warrant of 2004 "such styles and courtesy titles as are proper to the younger children of peers of the realm will in future be accorded to children adopted by peers". Alci12 15:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/r/Talk%7EHereditary_peer_a39c.html"