Private Members Bills Lords 2023

[colinp]

The results of the ballot for private members Bills in the Lords for the coming session have been announced.  The following may be of interest to the Group.  I don't think the draft bills have yet been published 

2  Succession to Peerages and Baronetcies Bill [HL] – Lord Northbrook

20  House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] – Lord Grocott [inevitably]

Lord Northbrook's bill is high on the list so perhaps there is more chance of that being debated and proceeding but whether the Commons would be prepared to give it much time is open to question.  Previous attempts to legislate in this area have not proceeded far - not beyond Second Reading I think.  Not sure how the Daughters Rights campaign to have the question considered by the European Court of Human Rights is getting on 

Of peripheral interest (perhaps to the position of the Bishops in the Lords) is the following which seems rather a large topic for a private members Bill

22  Disestablishment of the Church of England Bill [HL] – Lord Scriven

[rcb1]

As many of you are no doubt aware, Francis Northbrook has no sons but three daughters and, as the law stands, his peerage (but not baronetcy) will die with him.  So he has a vested interest in changing the law of sucession and he feels strongly about it.    No doubt, he will argue his case persuasively but I would have thought it is highly unlikely that his bill will succeed.

[Henry W]

Hansard of 20 November 2023

The Succession to Peerages and Baronetcies Bill [HL] was read a first time and order to be printed

Succession to Peerages and Baronetcies Bill [HL] text

A synopsis:

- All remainders are effectively converted to heirs general of the body without division.  Its possible that the way that this is worded would not completely disrupt more unusual remainders (e.g. the Earl of Selkirk would still have its distinctive "bouncing" remainder, but it would allow daughters to succeed too, making occasions when it would bounce less common)

- Abeyant peerages will come out of abeyance immediately in line with above remainder

- Peerages extinct since 6 Feb 1952 (the accession of the late Queen Elizabeth II) will be resurrected if an heir in line with above remainder exists.

- Peerages extinct before 1952 are revivable on petition.

[colinp]

It also has the proviso (clause 1 (4)) that "within each group of siblings males in order of birth and their issue are entitled to succeed before females in order of birth and their issue" so it's males in order of birth then females in order of birth - like the succession to the Crown before the 2015 changes

[Henry W]

I think that's the same as heirs general without division?

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

I personally hope it doesn't get up. The idea of doing "a Spanish inquisition" on the Peerage and Baronetage will create a lot of problems. I firmly believe titles should become extinct rather than continue for ever. The Spanish changes has turn the nobility into a mockery. I believe it is not an essence in the 21st century that Peerage and Baronets are of any importance then say "cost of living", "Energy" and other major pressing issues. Instead should slowly become a thing of the past, living their original condition of succession for each issued.

[marquess]

As there is now virtually no chance of any new hereditary peerages being created, either amongst the general public and the Royal family is no looing unlikely too; I should welcome the bill if it passes. There might be a chance of certain marquisates being revivied, Lincolnshire and Crewe coming to mind. 

As to the comparison with Spain, at least it is possible to be given an hereditary title there unlike in UK; though having said that, there can be no comparision of an Spanish marquisate or dukedom in terms of prestiege with a UK equivalent. 

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

If you see the present King of Spain has not created any peerage but has deleted all Franco nobility.. If I am mistaken regarding titles under Felipe.

[colinp]

Sorry, Henry - a senior moment on my part...

[marquess]

You correct about the Franco era titles,  it was the government's decision, not the King's. There are still plenty of non Franco era titles that were created by Juan Carlos that remain valid. My point remains the same, if the bill passes and certain marquisates are revived as a result, this would be most welcome.  

On another, point if the law goes through, there will be a duke of Portland as well as an earl of Portland. The whole business is impractical and may in the long run lead to public opposition, as it is being used as a means to further propagate the an increase in titles. 

[S. S.]

Section 2 of the bill slightly confuses me. Why does list a baronetcy in the same vein as a peerage in terms of abeyance? I am not aware of a baronetcy ever being abeyant at any point in time. Sure, plenty of baronetcies have been dormant but never abeyant?

The next thing that comes to mind is that why should peerages extinct after 1952 be considered to not be extinct by a line through a female? They are no less and no more important than those coming before. While it is true the drafters would have had to thought something reasonable, but leaving out the vast majority of creations in the past (even though that itself is contentious) is still contentious. 

The other thing is the line "Within each group of siblings, males in order of birth and their issue are entitled to succeed before females in order of birth and their issue".  Does this mean it can override the special remainders created for quite a few peerages? For example, some peerages give remainders to only certain siblings, invariably brothers most of the time, and not to others. If it states "males in order of birth", that would mean all males born to a set of parents in remainder to a peerage in order. Some brothers have invariably been left out in the remainder of a peerage for a multitude of reasons, whether for reasons of incapacity, personal reasons etc.

For the phrase, "if there is no instrument, the law as to succession to that peerage or baronetcy, subject to subsections (3) and (4)". Does this then not apply to those prescriptive baronies of Ireland and that of certain peerages whose legal instruments are totally unknown or no longer extant? 

The next thing is the phrase "on the ground that she is a woman or that she or he claims through a woman" when considering succession as not being barred for both sexes. How would claim through a woman work in terms of abeyance and those of special remainders? Since this applies overall to peerages of any kind.

For Section 3, subsection (6) regarding decision of appeal, who would even verify and suitably decide on such cases in the first place? Is there still a Committee for Privileges that would decide succession to a peerage case?

S.S.

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

Titles created by Francisco Franco
http://unterstein.net/NobEsp?action=s+select&sel2=filtroTEspF&simple=false

Titles created by Juan Carlos I
http://unterstein.net/NobEsp?action=s+select&sel2=filtroRJC1&simple=false

Francoist titles abolished (suprimido) by the Ley de Memoria Democrática
http://unterstein.net/NobEsp?action=s+select&sel2=filtroSuprimido&text=2022-10-20&sel4=Sucesion&simple=false

Ley de Memoria Democrática (electronic page 31)
https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2022/10/20/pdfs/BOE-A-2022-17099.pdf

[malcolm davies]

mg I am with you on this-I hope it doesn't get up either.

One matter that will not likely be debated is the purpose of creating hereditary peerage.It was described by L G Pine in his book "the Story of Titles"(this is from memory) that the reason was the ennobled person's service to the nation was such that their name should be commemorated in the form of a title descendable to their male heirs thus perpetuating their service.This object,of course, cannot be sustained if the title descends to a person of a different name,which remains the practice when females marry.

Of course there have been peerage creations where there was a special remainder because the peer had no sons.In such cases it is notable that the second or third generation  reverted to the normal remainder.

Needless to say the rules do not apply to Scottish peerages and where females inherit titles in Scotland,the connection between the original peer and the current peer or peeress becomes remote.A good example is the Earl of Newburgh where the title has descended through 3 different females and the present peer is an Italian prince who has no connection with Scotland.How does that perpetuate the memory of the 1st Earl who was a cavalier who supported Charles I?

Likewise how will the name of the 1st Lord Northbrook be perpetuated if it descends to daughters who do not have the name Baring?

Marquess thank you for pointing out the Dukedom of Portland may come out of extinction if the bill is passed.At least William Parente in whose favour that would happen, is the owner of the Portland estates and represents the family in that respect.

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

100% correct.. Also split of titles that were created separately and many court matters between heirs.. It would be a total mess because an interested party in the most senior female (multiply) lines makes a claim.. It is best to start from new hereditary Peerages.. if any do get created.. It would have been a great example with the Dukedom of Edinburgh.. Sadly to our surprise a lifetime only. I think a title going dormant till a court case resolves issues of multiple claimants will make a mockery of the Peerage changes..

[Peter FitzGerald]

As drafted, this Bill seems to me to be saying "when a peer dies, work out who the heir is as if the title had always been able to pass through the female line". But that surely cannot be what was intended, because it would have the effect of disinheriting the children (male and female) of many peers who only inherited because a senior line ran out of male heirs. The point the drafter seems to have missed is that someone succeeds to a peerage because they are the heir of the original grantee (under whatever succession rules apply to that peerage), not the heir of the previous holder of that peerage.

What was presumably meant was to add a proviso saying "treat any previous bypassing of women as valid, so as not to disinherit the current line", but I can't see anything in the Bill actually saying that. And it's not clear how that would even work anyway: would previously bypassed lines be barred from inheriting for ever, or only if the current peer has no issue at all, or only if the peerage would otherwise become extinct, or something else?

Say the 7th Earl of London has three sons: Tom, Dick and Harry. The 7th Earl dies and Tom becomes 8th Earl. Tom has only daughters, so when he dies, Dick becomes 9th Earl. Dick has a daughter, Alice, and a son, Bob; and when Dick dies, Bob becomes 10th Earl. Harry, meanwhile, has also had only daughters, and has also died. This Bill then passes into law, and the next day Bob dies. What happens? The recently deceased 10th Earl, Bob, has no children, so no one there to inherit. Does it go to Alice? She's the closest relative to Bob, and she is the child of a previous Earl, but she's not the heir general without division - that's one of Tom's daughters - also the daughters of a previous Earl, and in a senior line. And if if is Alice who succeeds, what about when she dies? Do we treat Tom's daughters as still bypassed, so it goes to one of Harry's daughters, even though they are the daughters of a younger son - and a son, at that, who was never Earl himself? How would that be fair? Or are Tom's daughters now 'back in the game', as it were, on the extinction of Dick's line, taking precedence over the junior line through Harry?

This might seem pedantic and convoluted, but with hundreds of hereditary peerages there are plenty of titles for which this would be a very real issue.

And the same for extinct peerages under section 3 - is the intention for them to pass to the heir general without division of the original grantee, or of the last holder?

[malcolm davies]

If this bill is passed,there will be a lot of extinct titles affected as it will apply to 3 dukedoms,4 marquessates and over 30 earldoms that became extinct in the last reign.

And it would cause confusion.For example the UK earldom of Bessborough became extinct in 1993 but the Irish earldom of the same name continued.The last UK Earl had a daughter to whom the bill would apply,thus causing an obvious problem.

The drafting of the bill does not inspire any confidence that the drafters understand peerage law.

[marquess]

Malcolm also what would happen if a dukedom or marquisate is revived and all the subsiduary titles are held by the person who succeeded to the lesser titles?

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

I personally prefer if a title becomes extinct, that a potential heir through female descent does what has happen in the past, especially in the dying days in the Kingdom of Italy and ask for a regrant of a title. Maybe a special regrant circumstances to the Monarch alone. Give the Monarch that privilege rather then a Court of Law or the House of Lords (that is filled with Life Lords/Ladies).

[malcolm davies]

Marquess,the bill if enacted,can only change the succession once the current peer dies.Thus previous successions would be unaffected.

[malcolm davies]

Mg,

      On my count there are at least 82 occasions when a regrant of an earldom has occurred to a member of the same family-so it was not uncommon in the past.Current peers in that category include Bradford,Leicester,Powis & Plymouth for a start.

[Henry W]

I would certainly agree that it a provision that allows peerages / baronetcies to be revived from extinction is unlikely to see much support from the public, and might be gutted in the House of Commons if it ever got that far.  Whilst a change to make peerage succession blind to sex might see some support in the public, no-one will really understand why that means we have to resurrect long dead titles - many will see it as just a way for the rich / landed to aggrandize themselves further.  

The resolution to peerages that can go abeyant is at least something that makes sense - I don't think it would change the future heirs of any title, other than to make the eldest female in a group of siblings have priority over her sisters.  However, there are some abeyant peerages that have been so for centuries.  Trying to identify and prove an heir may be nigh-on impossible. However, it will be particularly helpful for the share of the LGC currently held by the Baroness Willoughby de Eresby - at least one of her cousins can succeed to the peerage and then sit in the House by right of that peerage when it is "their turn" (anticipated reign of Prince George of Wales).

The co-existence of extinct senior titles and their previously junior subsidiary titles is an anomaly (as mentioned there will be a Duke of Portland & an Earl of Portland), assuming that the possibility of succession to the heir general without division of the original grantee [as suggested by Peter F] is not how things go.

[malcolm davies]

I have reread the bill.

Basically a woman is now legally a man for the purposes of succession to a title,albeit postponed to those persons who are men in fact.

As to abeyant peerages,the bill will mean that the eldest co heir will always succeed.This has not been the case in the past where the Crown could choose which co heir inherited-see Barony of Herbert.This will mean that some persons will accumulate a number of baronies.

In the case of Lady Willoughby d'Eresby, her heir will be Sebastian Seymour Miller who resides at Grimsthorpe Castle.Lady Wiiloughby will also have the right to petition the Crown to become Countess of Ancaster, provided she does so within a year of the bill becoming law.

Another effect will be to allow Lady Arlington to become Countess of Arlington.

[marquess]

Baroness Arlington requires no futher legislation to make her Countess of Arlington, just a change in the Committees' extremely conservative and unsound decision as to the abyeance of the earldom. I wonder if the Crown will limit the petition for the revial of a peerage to 100 years?

 I would wlecome any legislation that make the succession to baronies by writ of summons much easier.  David Williamson once suggested to that there should be legislation that automatically raised siblings  to their appropriate ranks once the succession to a peerage is confirmed, I would hope that this Bill will address that.  In the  ase of baronetcies, there will be many more dames running around. 

[bx...@yahoo.com]

It seems to me  that if the bill is enacted, the net result would be more hereditary peerages. 

This appears to be in opposition to the trend toward, if anything, life peerages.  After all, even the son of the late Queen was only given a Dukedom for life and former Prime Ministers are no longer given hereditary earldoms.

What are the chances of the bill being enacted?

Brooke

[colinp]

I think it most unlikely the bill will be enacted.  If it were it would certainly give rise to a number of interesting situations.  I was thinking about royal Dukedoms.  The most obvious effect would be that Princess Beatrice would become heiress presumptive to her father's Dukedom of York.

It is interesting to note that the heir-general to the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (cr 1874 ext 1942) is King Carl Gustaf of Sweden.  Had the 2nd Duke lived another 9 years the King would automatically have become the Duke of Connaught under the terms of the Bill.  It is probably unlikely that the King would petition under clause 3 (2) and (3) for the dukedom to be vested in him

With regard to the extinct Dukedom of Edinburgh (cr 1866 ext 1900) it is of course almost inconceivable that the Crown would grant a petition that the Dukedom be revived - this would almost certainly be the case for any of the other royal dukedoms extinct before 1952.  Arguably however the heir-general to the Duke of Connaught is Paul Lambrino - his father Carol Lambrino, eldest son of King Carol II of Romania, had been declared legitimate by courts in Portugal, France and Romania itself and (I think) the UK .  While any petition launched by him would undoubtedly be dismissed, he could cause a lot of mischief and possibly use it to further his claim to the Headship of the Royal House of Romania.

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

Isn't Paul Lambrino sives Prince Paul of Romania on the run from the Authorities of Romania ??

[Henry W]

From Hansard of 5 December 2023

A Bill to amend the House of Lords Act 1999 so as to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary peers.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Grocott, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

The bill is largely as previous versions - by-elections to cease and the remaining to hereditary peers to reduce naturally.

[Henry W]

From Hansard of 6 December 2023

A Bill to disestablish the Church of England; to make provision for the protection of freedom of religion or belief; and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Scriven, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Disestablishment of the Church of England Bill [HL]

The bill forms a committee to investigate the necessary legislative changes to disestablish the Church of England, including the removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords.  The bill does not in-of-itself disestablish the Church.

[colinp]

A rival private members bill providing for female succession to titles has been introduced  in the Commons

Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament

The draft bill has not yet been published

[colinp]

Second reading debate today on Lord Northbrook's Succession to Peerages and Baronetcies Bill - 

Succession to Peerages and Baronetcies Bill [HL] - Hansard - UK Parliament

[Peter de Loriol Chandieu]

This will not be passed. Even more so when Labour inherit the mantle

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/f42bf53c-4e46-419a-8ac9-195279f3753cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Henry W]

A number of hereditary peers spoke on the bill, and it is clear from the government minister (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) that the bill does not have government support.  The fact that it is a half way house (i.e. allows female succession, but not on equal terms with their male siblings) means that it pleases no-one, and the possibility of reviving many extinct titles does not appear to have support on either a philosophical basis or due to practical considerations.

[malcolm davies]

It’s well worth reading the speech of the Minister.Of interest it the fact that’s there are 790 hereditary peers of whom 660 are on the Roll of the Peerage.

[malcolm davies]

One thing to note(and it was not raised in the  debate over the Succession to Peerages and Baronetcies Bill) is why it is necessary to alter succession rights if the person is otherwise worthy to become a peer,as there is no reason for them not to be created one.

And, of course, there is the threat that heriditary peers will be forced from the House of Lords anyway(not that I am in favour of that,quite the contrary),so the issue has no priority.