Ministers Criticise Betty over Arms and Titles!!
The Chief
dom "peers" of their arms and titles!!
Read all about it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-and-monarchy-pass-buck-on-nondoms-2023132.html
Regards,
The Chief
Graham Truesdale
news:0780d114-2865-403c...@b4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
As was emphasised in connection with Lord Archer, HM
has no power to strip a peer of their title - that takes an
Act of Parliament like the Titles Deprivation Act 1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_Deprivation_Act_1917
--
The step from agnosticism to atheism is a leap of faith.
The Chief
<graham.truesd...@tiscali.nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> "The Chief" <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0780d114-2865-403c...@b4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > British ministers criticise Betty for her failure to act and strip non-
> > dom "peers" of their arms and titles!!
> > Read all about it:
>
> As was emphasised in connection with Lord Archer, HM
> has no power to strip a peer of their title - that takes an
> --
> The step from agnosticism to atheism is a leap of faith.
But that is not the party line now, is it? Now the line is:
"the only mechanism to take titles away without legislation was for
the Queen to intervene"
So, where is Betty when action is required?
Regards,
The Chief
CJ Buyers
may not know what that is.
As restated by Mr Truesdale, the action that is required is
legislation.
It is barmy to suggest that every time the government in power does
not, for its own reasons WISH to follow constitutional practice and
pass legislation as required by law, they can simply turn to the Queen
and ask her to issue a decree.
Of course, whether they get very far in trying to legislate is another
matter. While there may be a recent convention requiring those who
ATTEND the upper chamber to be domiciled in the UK, there does not
seem to be any law which says that the HOLDER of a peerage (or any
other title) has to be domiciled in the UK. There is a history of
conferring peerages and other titles on people who reside abroad. So
they probably will not get be able to convince Parliament to pass the
necessary legislation in these particular cases.
Raveem
separate concepts into one.
Members of the second chamber are now expected to be, effectively,
Government employees. With that goes wages (right now, expenses only,
but we are moving towards wages), accountability (don't laugh) and an
expectation of presenteeism and retirement when unfit.
Unfortunately, the model we're trying to fit into this hole is that of
the second chamber *as it used to be*. When the qualification for
entry was a title. So rather than be honest about what we're trying to
do with the second chamber (effectively make it a modern senate), we
decided to keep all the old forms and rituals. So entry is still
contingent upon letters patent. Members are still admitted only when
they have, at least, a (life) barony. The forms of address inside the
chamber and outside of it for members and their families are identical
to what they would have been hundreds of years ago. We have created
appointed senators, we just carry on calling them lords.
The trouble is that nobility cannot traditionally be stripped for any
petty reason such as "non-attendance" or "failing to retire" or even
"incompetence" or "criminal activity". A raising to peerage was meant
to permanently, short of treason, elevate an individual and his/her
heirs to nobility. Given that we have kept all these trappings, it is
now impossible, or at least, very difficult, to start giving and
taking peerages on the basis of criteria which are completely
incompatible with the concept of nobility on which peerage titles are
based. And any attempt to change this would be an attack not just on
the newer titles created, but all titles. A senator or an MP can be
dismissed, but the frequent stripping of nobility from a titled peer
is something else. This is why Lord Archer couldn't be 'sacked' and
this is why we cannot take away titles of peers who now will not or
cannot attend.
Until we separate titles and define them purely as honours, from a
position in the second chamber, which will be purely political/
legislative with no honour component, this mess will continue. The
Conservatives will be in no hurry to sort it out given that it must
rank rather low on their priorities (although see Michael, now Lord
Howard's comments on this, which seem to tend in the direction
mentioned http://www.hereditarypeers.com/HOWARD.HTM).
We do now have a very interesting, if unsatisfactory, situation. The
HoL is more 'legitimate' than it has been in almost a century,
following first stage reform. It now feels confident enough to
routinely trash legislation passed to it from the HoC. Yet its members
remain as tenured and impossible to remove as the previously
'disliked' hereditary peers due to the confusion between the job and
the noble status which remains the doorway into the chamber.
Raveem.
The Chief
>
> We do now have a very interesting, if unsatisfactory, situation. The
> HoL is more 'legitimate' than it has been in almost a century,
> following first stage reform. It now feels confident enough to
> routinely trash legislation passed to it from the HoC. Yet its members
> remain as tenured and impossible to remove as the previously
> 'disliked' hereditary peers due to the confusion between the job and
> the noble status which remains the doorway into the chamber.
>
> Raveem.
Just to say that this is an excellent post.
Regards,
The Chief
CJ Buyers
>
> We do now have a very interesting, if unsatisfactory, situation. The
> HoL is more 'legitimate' than it has been in almost a century,
> following first stage reform. It now feels confident enough to
> routinely trash legislation passed to it from the HoC. Yet its members
> remain as tenured and impossible to remove as the previously
> 'disliked' hereditary peers due to the confusion between the job and
> the noble status which remains the doorway into the chamber.
>
I think perhaps you are overstating the case.
It is just a matter of time before people get used to the new House of
Lords. After all, people are able to understand the difference between
a nobleman and a judge, a Scottish Lord of Session, a Lord Mayor or
Lord Provost, or a Scottish landholder. The use of similar terms of
address do not seem to cause much confusion for most people in these
cases.
Alas, the printed media is largely in the hands of failed BA's and
drunken sots, so it takes them a little longer than most. It is also
sometimes in the own interests nowadays to raise a ruckus in pathetic
attempts to stimulate their ever flagging sales. The days are long
gone when their function was to inform, explain and educate.
Raveem
agree, frequently gets things wrong. Or forms of address and how the
public views its legislators and whether it can distinguish them from
the titled aristocracy.
It is concrete fact that entry to the HoL is by letters patent. This
ceremony remains in place even though the means by which commoners are
nominated has become more 'democratic' (e.g., the PM is no longer the
sole tap to the FoH, see http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/).
Nearly all our hereditary aristocracy was created via letters patent.
HoL reform is not meant to interfere with their status apart from
their removal from the second chamber. Letters patent cannot be
revoked at will since that strikes at the root of nobiliary status.
Since literally all privileges of nobility have been excised, removal
of this last vestige will be opposed by the nobility, and the palace
has already indicated it will not get involved.
There is thus absolutely no way we will be able to have functioning
'senators' (working hours, attendance, retirement, accountability)
while creation by letters patent (an ancient practise, unsuited to
these criteria, and affecting more individuals than just those in the
second chamber) remains in place.
Letters patent were never meant to be employee contracts.
If the second chamber's members are to be treated as such, we must
stop giving them permanent nobility, only to want to revoke it.
Raveem.
Louis Epstein
: British ministers criticise Betty for her failure to act and strip non-
: dom "peers" of their arms and titles!!
: Read all about it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-and-monarchy-pass-buck-on-nondoms-2023132.html
To dare to criticize the Queen in such matters
should result in losing office as a "minister"
at the very least.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
All required action is that the total discretion of the Sovereign
be uncritically deferred to.
Louis Epstein
:
: We do now have a very interesting, if unsatisfactory, situation. The
: HoL is more 'legitimate' than it has been in almost a century,
Since I consider inheritance a better means of choosing leaders
than election,I disagree.
: following first stage reform. It now feels confident enough to
: routinely trash legislation passed to it from the HoC. Yet its
> members remain as tenured and impossible to remove as the previously
: 'disliked' hereditary peers due to the confusion between the job and
: the noble status which remains the doorway into the chamber.
:
: Raveem.
-=-=-
Raveem
present, it's just an assessment of the terrain, not necessarily a
statement of support.
Raveem.
nicho...@gmail.com
It's a reading that makes sense to me.
But the whole situation with the upper House in the UK is pretty
bizarre. Back when they were all hereditary the British taxpayer got a
revising chamber for free. I say if some rich asshole is willing to
waste his time going over laws with a fine-tooth comb, and politely
point out to the Commons when it has screwed up, let him.
Now you get exactly the same service, pay for it with Parliamentary
Expense Accounts, and pat yourselves on the back because only 90 of
the rich assholes inherited their money.
I figure if you want to get rid of hereditary privilege you should
just abolish the dang thing completely. In the US a Senate was
necessarily because small states worried they'd get ignored in DC.
What's the UK going to base their Senate district? Counties? Maybe
they'll have a Senate of four guys?
An elected Senate would be a clone of the Commons. You'd more then
double salary expenses (the HoL is actually bigger then the Commons),
electoral expenses, etc. and gain approximately nothing. Heck you'd
lose the Lords status as a revising house -- elected Lords of the PMs
party aren't exactly likely to tell him he screwed up. Elected Lords
not of the PMs, party, OTOH, are likely to lead to gridlock. Which is
not conducive to successful revision of dumb ideas.
Nick
mrj
> In alt.talk.royalty Raveem <rav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : We do now have a very interesting, if unsatisfactory, situation. The
> : HoL is more 'legitimate' than it has been in almost a century,
>
> Since I consider inheritance a better means of choosing leaders
> than election,I disagree.
>
**************************
Oh? So you think Kim Jong-il, successor to Kim Il-Sung, is the best
president for North Korea, and you see his son/successor, Kim Jong-
Un, as equally valid in this hereditary/presidency (euphamism for
king/dictator)....ah republics! Aren't they the greatist? I am sure
all republicans will agree :o
**************************
CJ Buyers
> Alas, it is not just a case of the ignorant media, which, we can
> agree, frequently gets things wrong. Or forms of address and how the
> public views its legislators and whether it can distinguish them from
> the titled aristocracy.
>
> It is concrete fact that entry to the HoL is by letters patent. This
> ceremony remains in place even though the means by which commoners are
> nominated has become more 'democratic' (e.g., the PM is no longer the
>
> Nearly all our hereditary aristocracy was created via letters patent.
> HoL reform is not meant to interfere with their status apart from
> their removal from the second chamber. Letters patent cannot be
> revoked at will since that strikes at the root of nobiliary status.
> Since literally all privileges of nobility have been excised, removal
> of this last vestige will be opposed by the nobility, and the palace
> has already indicated it will not get involved.
>
> There is thus absolutely no way we will be able to have functioning
> 'senators' (working hours, attendance, retirement, accountability)
> while creation by letters patent (an ancient practise, unsuited to
> these criteria, and affecting more individuals than just those in the
> second chamber) remains in place.
>
> Letters patent were never meant to be employee contracts.
>
> If the second chamber's members are to be treated as such, we must
> stop giving them permanent nobility, only to want to revoke it.
I do not know where you have got all this about Letters Patent from,
but you are getting overly confused over them. LPs are how a good
number of public appointments are made.
You say that they are not employee contracts, but in the case of
certain appointments that is precisely what they are. Good examples
are the Letters Patent which appoint a Governor-General or Governor to
his or her post. The old LPs become redundant when a new set are
issued to a new appointee or the incumbent is issued with new LPs.
The issue of removing peers is altogether a different matter and has
nothing to do with the actual instrument of creating a life,
hereditary, representative or spiritual peer. Indeed, the whole issue
is irrelevant to actual attendance in the house. That is managed by a
writ of summons.
If there needs to be a change in the way that the members of the
modern House of Lords are summoned or dismissed, then precedence and
examples are there from the history and practice followed in that self
same house. I would suggest looking at the procedures employed for the
Scots and Irish representative peers before 1958, and the English
lords spiritual.
StephenP
> British ministers criticise Betty for her failure to act and strip non-
> dom "peers" of their arms and titles!!
>
> Regards,
> The Chief
It is a rather poor article. Which "ministers" exactly? The Queen
has no real say in who the politicians choose to becomes a Lord so why
should she have to decide remove them when the same politicians change
their minds?
The dire quality of the article can be seen from this:
"Anger was growing yesterday that four peers who have given up their
seats in the House of Lords to enable them to live abroad for tax
reasons will still be able to style themselves Lord or Baroness and
use their coats of arms."
Firstly, who exactly is getting angry and secondly, how do their coats
of Arms fit into this particular issue? I doubt very much that the
Nigel Morris was referring to the use of the peer's supporters.
Stephen
Raveem
phrase which captures 'process by which a commoner is made a permanent
peer' and the hook on which I decided to hang this was the LP. As you
say, LPs were and are used for other appointments and also for peers
who, in the past, were not guaranteed a seat in the HoL. Thanks for
the correction.
The argument I've wanted to make and which I feel still stands is that
permanent titles of nobility, which may have suited the HoL in the
past, are singularly unsuited to what we (our political leaders) want
the current second chamber to be. In the past, once made a noble,
attendance was optional and salary non-existent. Now, we want them to
attend and are willing to at least pay expenses as a prelude to wages
and other benefits. We also do not want them to be associated with the
chamber, or the peerage that continues to define it, if they do not
take up their duties actively.
Like a knighthood, a peerage remains an honour (now, for life). Unlike
a knighthood, entwined with this honour is the political appointment.
It is the nature of the latter which has changed, while the former has
remained static.
This throws up the occasional glaring incompatibility: the
aforementioned case of Lord Archer and now, the fact that peers can
'leave the Lords' (i.e., lose the political component, a phrase which
could not have existed in times past) whilst continuing to use titles
(retaining the honour component).
Likewise, agreed that letters patent could be adjusted to grant titles
only whilst attending, but since we already have peers (the old
hereditaries) who now have no political component, alongside current
appointments which have been made more for the politics than for the
honour, some would argue for a permanent division between the honour
and political components.
Regards.
Raveem.
CJ Buyers
Patent. Summonning and removing peers can all be dealt with through
the existing instrument of the Writ of Summons.
The easy solution is for a new convention to emerge. We can start to
use the post-nominals "MHL" to stand for Member of the House of Lords,
for those called to attend that chamber and applied only when they
retain the position. As soon as their term exoires or they are
dismissed from attending, the usage of the post-nominal ceases.
In time, any confusion will die away. Just as "Honourables" in the
other place are easily distinguished from courtesy "Honourables",
judges and the like, by the simple device of using "MP" after their
names.
wm.k...@gmail.com
If you were not blinded by your instinctive and uncontrollable
obsession for finding fault with HM, you would realize that the only
delinquent in this situation is the idiotic unindentified "ministry
source" who is obviously trying to wiggle out of a dicey file by
passing the buck to the Palace - and is apparently also wrong about
the facts. You (and he) may be interested to know something of which
the Queen is already aware: as a constitutional monarch, she acts ONLY
on advice.
If you believe that democracy would be better served by a Queen who
usurps the role of parliament on a whim, you might consider starting a
movement to undo 400 years of constitional evolution, but that is
where the matter rests for now.
wm.k...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
How would the stripping government propose to enforce the revocation?
If Lord Tacks-Haven were formally stripped of his title and arms, how
would that prevent him from reserving a table at a restaurant in the
name of Lord Tacks-Haven and inviting people to call him "Your
Grace"? Would the government confiscate his Rolls Royce if he didn't
paint over the arms emblazoned on the door? Or would it be sufficient
if he just painted "The commoner formerly known as ...." above?
You would think a new government would have more pressing things to
fret over.
Louis Epstein
: On Jul 11, 1:05?pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:> In alt.talk.royalty Raveem <rav...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> :
:> : We do now have a very interesting, if unsatisfactory, situation. The
:> : HoL is more 'legitimate' than it has been in almost a century,
:>
:> Since I consider inheritance a better means of choosing leaders
:> than election,I disagree.
:>
:
: **************************
: Oh? So you think Kim Jong-il, successor to Kim Il-Sung, is the best
: president for North Korea, and you see his son/successor, Kim Jong-
: Un, as equally valid in this hereditary/presidency (euphamism for
: king/dictator)....ah republics! Aren't they the greatist? I am sure
: all republicans will agree :o
They are republicans who regard "the people" as a legitimate source
of authority,and make a show of being elected,so no,I do not support them.
: **************************
:
Louis Epstein
: On Jul 10, 6:34?pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote:
:> On Jul 10, 3:24?pm, "Graham Truesdale"
:>
:> <graham.truesd...@tiscali.nospam.co.uk> wrote:
:> > "The Chief" <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote in message
:>
:> >news:0780d114-2865-403c...@b4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
:>
:> > > British ministers criticise Betty for her failure to act and strip non-
:> > > dom "peers" of their arms and titles!!
:> > > Read all about it:
:> > >http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-and-monarchy-...
:>
:> > As was emphasised in connection with Lord Archer, HM
:> > has no power to strip a peer of their title - that takes an
:> > Act of Parliament like the Titles Deprivation Act 1917http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_Deprivation_Act_1917
:> > --
:> > The step from agnosticism to atheism is a leap of faith.
:>
:> But that is not the party line now, is it? Now the line is:
:> "the only mechanism to take titles away without legislation was for
:> the Queen to intervene"
:>
:> So, where is Betty when action is required?
:>
:> Regards,
:
: If you were not blinded by your instinctive and uncontrollable
: obsession for finding fault with HM, you would realize that the only
: delinquent in this situation is the idiotic unindentified "ministry
: source" who is obviously trying to wiggle out of a dicey file by
: passing the buck to the Palace - and is apparently also wrong about
: the facts. You (and he) may be interested to know something of which
: the Queen is already aware: as a constitutional monarch, she acts ONLY
: on advice.
:
: If you believe that democracy would be better served by a Queen who
: usurps the role of parliament on a whim, you might consider starting a
: movement to undo 400 years of constitional evolution, but that is
: where the matter rests for now.
I believe that the United Kingdom would be better served by everyone
in it regarding the Queen as inalienably entitled to alter or abolish
any Act of Parliament on a whim.What's good for "democracy" means nothing
and "constitutional evolution" toward deifying "democracy" needs to be
abandoned and repented.
The Chief
Bill, you are contradicting yourself here. On the other thread, about
the Canadian GG, you assured us that the monarch's reserve powers and
prerogative are essential, vis a vis the PM. Now, you are saying that
she acts "ONLY" in advice. Which is it?
>
> If you believe that democracy would be better served by a Queen who
> usurps the role of parliament on a whim, you might consider starting a
> movement to undo 400 years of constitional evolution, but that is
> where the matter rests for now.
Well, if she grants the titles and arms by prerogative, why not revoke
them also. Seems to be what the lad from the ministry are suggesting.
Regards,
The Chief
CJ Buyers
>
Indeed so. That is why the suggestion is all so daft.
Is anybody seriously suggesting that in the case of any member of the
House of Commons who decides to live abroad or not attend Parliament,
HM should strip him of anything more than membership of that body?
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip in the interests of brevity>
> Is anybody seriously suggesting that in the case of any member of the
> House of Commons who decides to live abroad or not attend Parliament,
> HM should strip him of anything more than membership of that body?
That is not what happens to the Sinn Fein (sp?) MPs.
Not to mention that it is quite ridiculous to suggest that the stripping
is done by the sovereign. Parliament in king in the British isles and
has been for a few centuries.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
The Chief
> British ministers criticise Betty for her failure to act and strip non-
> dom "peers" of their arms and titles!!
>
> Regards,
> The Chief
The British Taoiseach's official spokesman today left the door open to
stripping non-dom "peers" of their titles and coats of arms.
See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nondom-peers-who-have-left-the-lords-may-lose-titles-warns-no-10-2025073.html
Regards,
The Chief
Donald4564
"The British Taoiseach's"
You will have De Valera turning in his grave - but I admire your
recognition of the Irish PM's true status.
Regards
Donald Binks
Donald4564
>
> We do now have a very interesting, if unsatisfactory, situation. The
> HoL is more 'legitimate' than it has been in almost a century,
> following first stage reform. It now feels confident enough to
> routinely trash legislation passed to it from the HoC. Yet its members
> remain as tenured and impossible to remove as the previously
> 'disliked' hereditary peers due to the confusion between the job and
> the noble status which remains the doorway into the chamber.
>
> Raveem.
If the UK Upper House is to be changed then why not simply have the
creation of peerage titles as honours only, as in knighthoods,
foregoing any right to sit in parliament. All current peers sitting in
the House of Lords would lose their seat prior to an election for a
new House whereby the House of Lords could be renamed a Senate and
those elected to it called "Senators"
Of course I can't for the life of me see why anyone would wish to
change an institution that has worked well, more or less, for over
1,000 years - but who am I to judge? Politicians in their infinite
wisdom know far better than we ordinary plebeians and having
demonstrated lately their honesty and integrity together with their
ability to handle such mundane things as for example the economy -
why, we should have every confidence that a new system such as that
envisaged will work smoothly, efficiently and without added costs..
Regards
Donald Binks
David Cameron Staples
> "The British Taoiseach's"
>
> You will have De Valera turning in his grave - but I admire your
> recognition of the Irish PM's true status.
Eh. You might as well talk about the Australian Diet, or the Greek Alþing.
"Prime Minister" is the English translation of the Irish "Taoiseach", and
either is acceptable for the Irish Taoiseach, but the English Prime
Minister is only "an Taoiseach" if you're speaking in Irish.
Labhraíonn tú Gaeilge, a Chief?
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT unimelb DOT edu DOT au
Melbourne University | School of Engineering | IT Support
cows would live a lot longer if they werent made out of steaks and leather
-- bash.org/?73737
CJ Buyers
> On Jul 10, 2:26 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > British ministers criticise Betty for her failure to act and strip non-
> > dom "peers" of their arms and titles!!
> > Read all about it:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-and-monarchy-...
>
> > Regards,
> > The Chief
>
> The British Taoiseach's official spokesman today left the door open to
> stripping non-dom "peers" of their titles and coats of arms.
>
Actually no. That is what we call "kicking it into the long grass".
Donald4564
wrote:
Thank you for your explanation. I did know all this. I was merely
having a shot at "The Chief" as "Taoiseach" is not as far as I am
aware, used in reference to the British PM.
Regards
Donald Binks
David
> Of course I can't for the life of me see why anyone would wish to
> change an institution that has worked well, more or less, for over
> 1,000 years - but who am I to judge?
The House of Lords was certainly not in existence as an institution in
Anno Domini 1010. And while the Cyning of the day certainly took
advice (or pretended to take advice) from his eorlas and ealdormenn,
his biscopas and arcebiscopas, the occasional gatherings of such
advisors did not amount to a parliament; and the Anglo-Saxon eorl was
quite a different beast from the Norman conte or baron.
And while one may assert that the House of Lords worked well enough
between the 13th and 18th centuries (if we ignore the tendency of its
members, puffed up by their station, to attempt coups d'état or start
civil wars) by the beginning of the 19th century, with the passage of
the Reform Bill, it was apparent that the Lords had become a dangerous
anachronism, potentially fatal to the entire British body politic.
And though subsequent attempts were made to keep the Lords either
relevant or in bounds, the sheer frequency of such attempts
demonstrates their failure. The shape of the present House of Lords,
far from dating back 1000 years, dates from a mere 11 years ago, the
time of the last attempt at reform, and the result has been widely
criticized as creating a chamber of irrelevant political hacks. (The
concept of an elected House of Lords is at least 99 years old.)
The conclusion one may draw from these unsuccessful reform attempts
must be one of the following: 1. Any kind of reform was a bad idea and
should never have been attempted; 2. The problem with reform is that
it has proceeded by half-measures and has never gone far enough.
One's choice between the two is a strong indicator of temperament.
Raveem
must be one of the following: 1. Any kind of reform was a bad idea
and
should never have been attempted; 2. The problem with reform is that
it has proceeded by half-measures and has never gone far enough.
One's choice between the two is a strong indicator of temperament."
Strangely, this sums up both parties in the coalition to defeat HoL
reform: Powell of the former inclination, Foot of the latter.
Subjectively, given that we've already messed about with half measures
for so long, one's own opinion is that in order for titles as honours
having any chance of survival and eventual return to relevance, strong
reform of the HoL is needed to divorce titles (honours) from HoL
membership (legislation/politics). As the article (http://
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nondom-peers-who-have-left-the-lords-may-lose-titles-warns-no-10-2025073.html)
states:
"He added that action was essential to "disentangle" the honours
system from peers' role as part of the legislature."
The honour part of a peerage does indeed seem problematic:
"The position of the five peers has been considered by ministers, who
concluded that there was no power to remove titles – and the use of
heraldic coats of arms – in existing legislation.
They considered it not to be a sensible use of government time to take
specific action against them. The anomaly will not exist in future as
recent legislation now requires all members of the House of Lords –
and the Commons – to be full UK taxpayers and residents."
Raveem.
wm.k...@gmail.com
> > If you were not blinded by your instinctive and uncontrollable
> > obsession for finding fault with HM, you would realize that the only
> > delinquent in this situation is the idiotic unindentified "ministry
> > source" who is obviously trying to wiggle out of a dicey file by
> > passing the buck to the Palace - and is apparently also wrong about
> > the facts. You (and he) may be interested to know something of which
> > the Queen is already aware: as a constitutional monarch, she acts ONLY
> > on advice.
>
> Bill, you are contradicting yourself here. On the other thread, about
> the Canadian GG, you assured us that the monarch's reserve powers and
> prerogative are essential, vis a vis the PM. Now, you are saying that
> she acts "ONLY" in advice. Which is it?
>
>
>
> > If you believe that democracy would be better served by a Queen who
> > usurps the role of parliament on a whim, you might consider starting a
> > movement to undo 400 years of constitional evolution, but that is
> > where the matter rests for now.
>
> Well, if she grants the titles and arms by prerogative, why not revoke
> them also. Seems to be what the lad from the ministry are suggesting.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Show quoted text -
There seems to be some confusion (by which I have myself been
infected) among the terms reserve powers, prerogative powers, and
royal prerogative. As I understand it, the prerogative powers refer to
all remaining powers of the sovereign. This refers to powers that have
not been indepently established by statue or otherwise. For example,
the power to issue passports. They are always exercised on advice.
The reserve powers, by contrast, are those very small but very
important number of powers that the Crown may exercise without advice
in extraordinary circumstances. For example, the power to appoint a
new prime minister upon the death of a prime minister in office cannot
be exercised on advice since the dead cannot advise. In other cases, a
reserve power may be exercised when the Prime Minister has or appears
to have lost the confidence of the commons or the ministry. This would
enable the removal of a Prime Minister who refused to resign even when
he was unwanted by his own cabinet. A third case arises when the
sovereign uses the reserve powers to prevent an over-reaching Prime
Minister from transforming himself into a dictator. This would occur,
for example, when a Prime Minister who 'loses' an election either
refuses to resign; or meets parliament, is defeated, and asks for
another disolution. The sovereign uses the reserve powers to dismiss
the prime minister or refuse a dissolution and call upon another
member (probably, the leader of the party which one the most seats) to
form a government.
There are precedents for the use of the reserve powers in the UK,
Canada, and Australia and their use in the last 150 years or so has
usually been vindicated in the court of public opinion.
Unfortunately, it seems the phrase 'prerogative powers' is misused
even by fairly eminent writers (e.g. William Shawcross) to refer to
the 'reserve powers'. (As to what is precisely meant by the 'royal
prerogative' I am not quite sure.)
I trust this resolves the appearance of contradiction. A grant or
revocation of a title is a garden-variety use of the prerogative
powers and is therefore done on advice. Only the most ardent anti-
constitutionalist would favour changing that. The reserve powers have
been specially carved out as powers that must be reserved to the
sovereign so that she can act as the protectoress of democracy in
extraordinary situations. I do not not see the point in changing that
either but do understand it rankles with people who are absolutely
determined that no office in the realm should be occupied by one
chosen on the hereditary principle. Personally, I am not of their
number and in fact, believe the hereditary princicple works very well
when it comes to choosing a queen.
Bill King
George T SLC
Regards.
>
> Raveem.
>
> PS:http://lordsoftheblog.net/2010/07/11/empty-honours/
I asked a question there that I'd like to also offer to y'all: In the
early 21st, does having a non-royal title give one any more clout in
itself than being a D-list celebrity?
The Chief
> British ministers criticise Betty for her failure to act and strip non-
> dom "peers" of their arms and titles!!
> Read all about it:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-and-monarchy-...
>
> Regards,
> The Chief
Another angle: just been announced that the British Government is to
strip Anna Chapman of her citizenship. Just like that. Hust say it,
and it is so. So, can't strip an non-dom "peer' of arms and title
without legislation, but can strip someone of the very basics of
citizenship on say-so? Britain is a wonderful place.
Regards,
The Chief
wm.k...@gmail.com
wm.k...@gmail.com
How do you strip a peer of his arms and make it stick? Put him in the
tower if he does not white-them-out on his letterhead? I do not know
why people are wasting their time trying to figure out how to
promulgate an unenforceable law.
Donald4564
After the dismissal of the Prime Minister of Australia in 1975 by the
Governor-General using his reserve powers, there was talk of codifying
the reserve powers of the Crown. As no-one could come up with a
complete list of what they actually were - nothing has yet been done.
Regards
Donald Binks
Raveem
in Scotland, Lyon already has the authority to pursue impropriety.
Raveem.
wm.k...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am glad I am not the only one a little confused. By their very
nature, the reserve powers probly defy precise codification.
As I understand it, the unsuccessful effort to do so notwithstanding,
the actions of the Governor General in the Whitlam affair subsequently
met with widespread public approval.
Donald4564
Well of course the politicians think that the action of the Governor-
General in dismissing a 'democratically elected government' was wrong.
The Governor-General was of the mind that a government who had no
money and was intent on paying its servants I.O.U's was wrong. Most
people must have agreed with the Governor-General as Whitlam's
government was resoundly defeated at the following election.
It does pique my curiosity though as to why no government since has
sought to remove the power of the upper house to refuse supply.
Regards
Donald Binks
Donald4564
Thanks - it looks as if I took in too much territory with my dates.
The point I am trying to get across is that the House of Lords has
consisted of Hereditary Peers and Peers created for the term of their
natural life. This consistency is to be completely abolished in favour
of an elected House according to the current political whim.
What guarantee is there that the new House will work any better than
the old?
Regards
Donald Binks
Donald4564
Well of course the politicians think that the action of the Governor-
CJ Buyers
> "The conclusion one may draw from these unsuccessful reform attempts
> must be one of the following: 1. Any kind of reform was a bad idea
> and
> should never have been attempted; 2. The problem with reform is that
> it has proceeded by half-measures and has never gone far enough.
> One's choice between the two is a strong indicator of temperament."
>
> Strangely, this sums up both parties in the coalition to defeat HoL
> reform: Powell of the former inclination, Foot of the latter.
>
> Subjectively, given that we've already messed about with half measures
> for so long, one's own opinion is that in order for titles as honours
> having any chance of survival and eventual return to relevance, strong
> reform of the HoL is needed to divorce titles (honours) from HoL
> states:
>
> "He added that action was essential to "disentangle" the honours
> system from peers' role as part of the legislature."
>
> The honour part of a peerage does indeed seem problematic:
>
> "The position of the five peers has been considered by ministers, who
> concluded that there was no power to remove titles – and the use of
> heraldic coats of arms – in existing legislation.
>
> They considered it not to be a sensible use of government time to take
> specific action against them. The anomaly will not exist in future as
> recent legislation now requires all members of the House of Lords –
> and the Commons – to be full UK taxpayers and residents."
>
appointment, induces a lot of people from fields outside politics, to
take it up when otherwise they would not and their expertise lost to
the legislature and the nation.
You may be one of those who simply want to see another house stuffed
only full of political time servers and has-beens. I, however,
certainly do not want to see a reproduction of the House of Commons,
another chamber run by the party-machines for career politicians who
have never held any other job. What makes the HoL useful are the large
number of cross-benchers and bishops.
I find the whole business about attendence nonsensical. How many
Commons MPs attend regularly but never speak on anything? What use are
they performing by attending, other than to make up the numbers?
It may well be that a distinguished scientist, his services recognised
with a peerage, has no interest in holding a portfolio or taking part
in absurd discussions about bendy bananas or day-care facilities in
Scunthorpe. Once or twice a year, perhaps once in three years, there
will be legislation and debate about stem-cell research when his
expertise will be invaluable.
Consider, for example, a distinguished general or former police chief,
whose entire career and being is anathema to party politics, and who
would not normally wish to be a member of a political chamber. But
when it comes with the honour conferred on him, his expertise is
immediately available when legislation on terrorism or defence is to
be discussed.
That is why so much legislation is revised, thrown out or sent back to
the Commons for reconsideration. It is the House of Lords that has the
experts from all fields of life.
The House of Lords actually is more representative of the community at
large. It is the only chamber that has members in it who can represent
the vast majority of people - non politicians!
Raveem
mentioned by yourself make perfect sense in an appointed chamber, and
very appreciative of them I am too. But I wasn't referring to an
appointed chamber at all. Since it seems almost certain that we are
moving to an elected chamber, my comments refer that impending reality
of elected second chamber members where party political involvement
is, by definition, a reality. That wouldn't have been my choice, but a
completely elected chamber has been the overwhelming view when
consensus has been taken in the past. That is probably what we will
end up with. Given this, there will be no room for experts to be
honoured as they have been in times past, they will have to be elected
(http://lordsoftheblog.net/2010/06/06/a-handful-of-votes/,
http://lordsoftheblog.net/2010/06/08/doubts-about-ageing-experts/).
What need is there for honours if they are elected?
Raveem.
wm.k...@gmail.com
> That's a non-sequitur and caricature of my views. All those benefits
> mentioned by yourself make perfect sense in an appointed chamber, and
> very appreciative of them I am too. But I wasn't referring to an
> appointed chamber at all. Since it seems almost certain that we are
> moving to an elected chamber, my comments refer that impending reality
> of elected second chamber members where party political involvement
> is, by definition, a reality. That wouldn't have been my choice, but a
> completely elected chamber has been the overwhelming view when
> consensus has been taken in the past. That is probably what we will
> end up with. Given this, there will be no room for experts to be
> honoured as they have been in times past, they will have to be elected
> What need is there for honours if they are elected?
>
> Raveem.
I think the point quite obviously was that they would not stand for
election and their expertise will therefore be unavailable in the
upper chamber. By stipulating that office can only be achieved by
election you necessarily limit the candidates to politicians. The non-
sequitur may be that a people who holds politicians in such low esteem
seeks a few hundred more of them.
Bill King
barrassie
> On Jul 14, 7:29 am, Raveem <rav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's a non-sequitur and caricature of my views. All those benefits
> > mentioned by yourself make perfect sense in an appointed chamber, and
> > very appreciative of them I am too. But I wasn't referring to an
> > appointed chamber at all. Since it seems almost certain that we are
> > moving to an elected chamber, my comments refer that impending reality
> > of elected second chamber members where party political involvement
> > is, by definition, a reality. That wouldn't have been my choice, but a
> > completely elected chamber has been the overwhelming view when
> > consensus has been taken in the past. That is probably what we will
> > end up with. Given this, there will be no room for experts to be
> > honoured as they have been in times past, they will have to be elected
> > What need is there for honours if they are elected?
>
> > Raveem.
>
> I think the point quite obviously was that they would not stand for
> election and their expertise will therefore be unavailable in the
> upper chamber. By stipulating that office can only be achieved by
> election you necessarily limit the candidates to politicians. The non-
> sequitur may be that a people who holds politicians in such low esteem
> seeks a few hundred more of them.
>
> Bill King
An expert can always be appointed a Senator, if a Senate is set up
similarr to some other States.
Universities or similar seats of learning could be allowed to appoint
a small number of Senators, but leave out political appointments, the
legal and medical proffesional bodies could be allowed a small number
of appointments also, but leaving the Senate 80/90% an elected body by
merit!
CMK Hillhouse
wm.k...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you want an upper chamber with people of merit, why do you suppose
that elections will produce it?
Louis Epstein
: On Jul 12, 11:07?pm, Donald4564 <dbi...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
:
:> Of course I can't for the life of me see why anyone would wish to
:> change an institution that has worked well, more or less, for over
:> 1,000 years - but who am I to judge?
:
: The House of Lords was certainly not in existence as an institution in
: Anno Domini 1010. And while the Cyning of the day certainly took
: advice (or pretended to take advice) from his eorlas and ealdormenn,
: his biscopas and arcebiscopas, the occasional gatherings of such
: advisors did not amount to a parliament; and the Anglo-Saxon eorl was
: quite a different beast from the Norman conte or baron.
:
: And while one may assert that the House of Lords worked well enough
: between the 13th and 18th centuries (if we ignore the tendency of its
: civil wars) by the beginning of the 19th century, with the passage of
: the Reform Bill, it was apparent that the Lords had become a dangerous
: anachronism, potentially fatal to the entire British body politic.
Only by those who held to philosophies to which its existence
was inconvenient.
: And though subsequent attempts were made to keep the Lords either
: relevant or in bounds,
"Relevance" is determined by adherence to the principles that are
correct,regardless of what is believed by any "body politic".
: the sheer frequency of such attempts
: demonstrates their failure. The shape of the present House of Lords,
: far from dating back 1000 years, dates from a mere 11 years ago, the
: time of the last attempt at reform, and the result has been widely
: criticized as creating a chamber of irrelevant political hacks. (The
: concept of an elected House of Lords is at least 99 years old.)
And has always been harmful.
: The conclusion one may draw from these unsuccessful reform attempts
: must be one of the following: 1. Any kind of reform was a bad idea and
: should never have been attempted; 2. The problem with reform is that
: it has proceeded by half-measures and has never gone far enough.
: One's choice between the two is a strong indicator of temperament.
Indeed.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
: That's a non-sequitur and caricature of my views. All those benefits
: mentioned by yourself make perfect sense in an appointed chamber, and
: very appreciative of them I am too. But I wasn't referring to an
: appointed chamber at all. Since it seems almost certain that we are
: moving to an elected chamber, my comments refer that impending reality
The threat needing to be averted...
: of elected second chamber members where party political involvement
: is, by definition, a reality. That wouldn't have been my choice, but a
: completely elected chamber has been the overwhelming view when
: consensus has been taken in the past. That is probably what we will
: end up with. Given this, there will be no room for experts to be
: honoured as they have been in times past, they will have to be elected
: (http://lordsoftheblog.net/2010/06/06/a-handful-of-votes/,
: http://lordsoftheblog.net/2010/06/08/doubts-about-ageing-experts/).
: What need is there for honours if they are elected?
There is a need for a NON-elected chamber,
and preferably hereditary rather than appointed.
Both election and appointment can be obtained through
corrupt means,while parentage is free of this.
Louis Epstein
: On Jul 14, 2:07?pm, "wm.ki...@gmail.com" <wm.ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
Elections go to politicians,
appointments to the favorites of politicians.
Only seats held by birth are obtained without political debt.
David
> There is a need for a NON-elected chamber,
> and preferably hereditary rather than appointed.
The House of Lords has always been an appointive body.
The pre-reformation House of Lords, as I mentioned, consisted of Lords
Temporal and Lords Spiritual, the latter consisting of the Bishops and
the Abbots.
The Bishops, though nominally chosen by their cathedral chapters, were
in fact subject to royal (as well as papal) approval.
The Abbots were chosen by the monks of their abbeys, at least in
principle; but at each parliament the decision of *which* abbots to
summon to parliament was left to the government.
The Lords Temporal were very few in number, and a significant number
in any reign had been freshly chosen by the King, who was in any case
free to pack the Lords with as many peers as he liked.
After the reformation, the abbots were excluded and the number of
temporal lords tended to grow, but this growth meant that each new
monarch was making considerable use of his (or her) prerogative to
create new peers.
Ultimately we got to the point where, as in 1832 and 1910, the King
was reduced to threatening to create hundreds of new peers just to get
his government's programme through.
This was neither a purely hereditary body nor a body of disinterested,
non-partisan hereditary counsellors. The hereditary peers may indeed
have been the most partisan of the lot, and were very far from
neglecting their own social and pecuniary interests.
Raveem
G Knighton
> On Jul 12, 9:39 am, "wm.ki...@gmail.com" <wm.ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 6:34 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 3:24 pm, "Graham Truesdale"
>
> > > <graham.truesd...@tiscali.nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > "The Chief" <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote in message
Tempest in a teapot. People are trying to make a crisis out of
nothing, trying to involve The Queen in something that is not her
normal place.
It's true that in theory all honours come from The Queen.
But if the government wish to remove the title of a peer whom a
government recommended for peerage in the first place, then it is the
government that must see to an Act removing the titles, or they must
at least publicly and transparently request the removal of the
peerages as a matter of policy of the current government, at which
time negotiations can begin on how to pass an Act to which The Queen
would raise no constitutional issues.
The government cannot selectively decide when they will stand on their
constitutional rights. They have to behave logically and consistently
if they are going to involve The Queen's authority to get their way.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> On Jul 12, 4:24 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 9:39 am, "wm.ki...@gmail.com" <wm.ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 10, 6:34 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jul 10, 3:24 pm, "Graham Truesdale"
> >
> > > > <graham.truesd...@tiscali.nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > "The Chief" <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Tempest in a teapot. People are trying to make a crisis out of
> nothing, trying to involve The Queen in something that is not her
> normal place.
>
> It's true that in theory all honours come from The Queen.
I suspect only while a Queen, or King, is head of state.
> But if the government wish to remove the title of a peer whom a
> government recommended for peerage in the first place, then it is the
> government that must see to an Act removing the titles, or they must
> at least publicly and transparently request the removal of the
> peerages as a matter of policy of the current government, at which
> time negotiations can begin on how to pass an Act to which The Queen
> would raise no constitutional issues.
Agreed. Parliament is Sovereign in Britain, not the sovereign.
> The government cannot selectively decide when they will stand on their
> constitutional rights. They have to behave logically and consistently
> if they are going to involve The Queen's authority to get their way.
The sovereign has no real authority. If there were any clash,
parliament would soon pass a few laws to assert its superiority. If it
were really serious, the sovereign might be dispensed with and the fear
of that is almost certainly at the back of any sovereign's mind in any
threat of a dispute.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Raveem
http://goo.gl/kkYTt (BBC):
"The Lords can only issue a ban until the end of a session of parliament and the present parliament is due to end next April.
Banning Baroness Uddin beyond then would infringe her right to attend parliament which is conferred by the Queen."
Raveem.