Revival Of Hereditary Titles As An Honour?

[Paul-R]

In 2008, what sort of act - be it political, social or industrial - do
you feel would merit a hereditary peerage being granted?

As far as I am aware, there is no statute to dissolve the Monarch’s
power to bestow such honours, am I wrong?

Obviously we may see Prince Harry eventually being granted a Royal
peerage of some description, and it’s likely the dukedom of Edinburgh
will have to be re-created for the Earl of Wessex, but outside of the
Royals, is this tradition ‘dead in the water’, so to speak?

I know there are always questions over their relevance in the modern
age, but I for one would like to see, for example, Earldoms being
passed to worthy former-Prime Ministers (perhaps not to the most
immediate past PM! Imagine Countess Blair?!), and Speakers of the
House of Commons.

Does anyone else agree?

And, (my final question, I promise!) are there any other Monarchies in
the world that bestow inheritable titles solely as an honour, separate
from any political function?

I hope I don't sound rhetorical, I would really like some views on
this matter.

Apologies if these are questions that have been answered many time
before.

[Raveem]

The monarchy in Belgium is the example which is typically held up at
this point.

Even though the Crown is the Fount, there is, as Tony Benn stated,
only one tap, which is the PM. Hereditary honours are unfortunately
completely out of fashion politically. The last time one was bestowed
(a baronetcy at that, for Thatcher's husband), the incumbent PM got a
roasting.

If the title were divorced from a seat in the Lords, a case could be
made for hereditary titles, but I doubt this will happen. Our
political masters are perfectly comfortable letting the interim mess
drag on indefinitely to become the new and wholly unsatisfactory
status quo.

Raveem.

[marquess]

Agree with you about hereditary honours, but this debate has already
been done on this board.

[Turenne]

Paul-R

....Earldoms being passed to worthy former-Prime Ministers (perhaps
not to the most immediate past PM! Imagine Countess Blair?!....

I'm sorry.....what's your point?

Richard Lichten

[marquess]

Countess Blair would probably be a debasement of the honours system!

[Der Hurtmeister]

Probably?? !!!
Utter Certainty is more like it!

> > Richard Lichten- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Raveem]

Come now. The peerage has always existed at the price that people we
don't like are frequently raised to it.

Raveem.

[marquess]

Yes but not usually those who have no respect for the fount of all
such honours! I think that the peerage could well do with a countess
Blair.

[George Knighton]

This will not be popular here, I am sure, but I am basically
comfortable with what we're currently doing.

I do not see any point in increasing the electoral base for any future
hereditary element in the House of Lords.

On the other hand, we have all been pleasantly surprised with the
intensity and dedication with which the non-party political peers have
undertaken their duties. As it is currently composed, the House of
Lords has proved to be an even more valuable part of the composition
of the legislature that it has been in recent decades, and I believe
their influence is substantially increased by the current nature of
their composition.

In my opinion, there's no point in asking the Queen if she is
interested in legislating away her power to create hereditary peers,
and I believe her personal opinion evinces a very common sense
approach to the institution.

[Turenne]

I agree entirely with George; and would say further that as far as I
know, there is nothing stopping The Queen creating hereditary peerages
if she so wishes. The only prohibition is that the createe won't have
an automatic right to sit in The Lords.

marquess wrote:

>Yes but not usually those who have no respect for the fount of all
>such honours! I think that the peerage could well do with a countess
>Blair.

I can't understand what you are on about. There is no question of
Cherie Blair being created a countess in her own right. If Tony Blair
receives an earldom, it is highly unlikely that Cherie will refer to
herself as anything other than Cherie Booth.

Richard Lichten

[marquess]

What do you mean you can't understand what I am on about? I am not
referring to the obnoxious lady receiving a peerage in her own right
but simply being the wife of a newly created earl and therefore being
entitled to be addressed as such. As to the lack of an automatic seat
in the house being prohibition, I would have thought that it was the
opposite, the sooner hereditary peerages have less to do with
political power the more likely they are to be conferred.

[Raveem]

"there is nothing stopping The Queen creating hereditary peerages
if she so wishes."

Surely Parliament may have something to say if she ever exercises this
right for non-Royal peerages...

Raveem.

[the_ver...@comcast.net]

Her Majesty can dismiss Parliament at any time and 10,000 MP claiming that she can't won't change that fact.

The government is merely an instrument HM uses to exercise her perogatives. It has no power whatsoever except those granted to it from time to time by the monarch and which may be withdrawn at the monarch's pleasure.

--
The Verminator
"Nec petita nec cupita approbatio tua"

[Turenne]

Raveem wrote:

>Surely Parliament may have something to say if she ever exercises this
>right for non-Royal peerages...

That may be so; but as matters stand there is nothing to preclude her
creating hereditary peerages. It'll be interesting to see what happens
if and when Charles becomes king. The Queen has maintained her
position thus far by not rocking the boat. I wonder whether Charles
will do the same.

Richard

[marquess]

It would be difficult to oppose Charles were he to create a few
hereditary peers from a variety of backgrounds, especially a few black
or Indian ones. (with remainder to heir general too) Also coronation
peerages are in keeping with the hereditary principle of the
monarchy.

[George Knighton]

Since the right to create these honours is a part of the personal
prerogative, if the Queen felt strongly about it or if the government
advised her to do it, she would simply refuse to allow the bill to be
read.

The last time the Queen refused to allow a bill to be read, it was the
bill about the War in Iraq, which bill would have required the
government to obtain Parliamentary discussion and approval before such
a future commitment.

Having said this, however, the fact is that the Queen is committed to
democracy. If the hue and cry appeared to reflect a decision on the
part of the public that hereditary honours were a detriment to
society, or if the government simply asked her not to create
hereditary honours, the fact is that the Queen would listen to them.

[Raveem]

"Also coronation
peerages are in keeping with the hereditary principle of the
monarchy. "

"Having said this, however, the fact is that the Queen is committed
to
democracy. If the hue and cry appeared to reflect a decision on the
part of the public that hereditary honours were a detriment to
society, or if the government simply asked her not to create
hereditary honours, the fact is that the Queen would listen to them."

That's what I mean: Parliament is content to let the monarch create
royal dukedoms and earldoms. It's a different matter when, post 1964,
a commoner is raised to hereditary peerage. Every single hereditary
title created since 1964 has been done cautiously and not without
trouble:


- The viscountcies Tonypandy & Whitelaw were deliberately given to men
either childless or with daughters where there was no special
remainder for heirs general. This reflects how despite believing in
hereditary peerages, a sitting PM moved very cautiously.

- The Macmillan viscountcy and Stockton earldom was for the
penultimate Conservative PM who insisted on a hereditary title, this
request not falling on deaf ears since Thatcher was PM, and could use
the long-standing tradition of a commoner's right to peerage upon
retirement as PM.

- The Scotney baronetcy was the compromise Major gave to Thatcher for
her husband, and he got in a lot of trouble for it. Already we can see
that any resurrection of a hereditary title creates vast trouble, even
for a PM who is apparently fully within past tradition.


All this adds to the belief that hereditary titles effectively ceased
in 1964. This may change in the future, but a pessimistic view is that
just as we have nearly wholly excised the hereditary principle in
politics, *any* hereditary honour is now unthinkable, despite this
group's support for such.

Raveem.

[Turenne]

Raveem wrote:
>
> All this adds to the belief that hereditary titles effectively ceased
> in 1964. This may change in the future, but a pessimistic view is that
> just as we have nearly wholly excised the hereditary principle in
> politics, *any* hereditary honour is now unthinkable, despite this
> group's support for such.
>

Are you saying that peerages will no longer be called out of abeyance?
The abeyance of the barony of Grey of Codnor was terminated in 1989.
Since it is the sovereign who terminates abeyances, why did the Queen
do so in this (post 1964) case?

Richard Lichten

[Raveem]

Argh. The culprit is the careless sentence of mine "All this adds to
the belief that hereditary titles effectively ceased in 1964.".
Hereditary titles didn't cease at all: I just omitted the phrase "the
granting of"! Apologies.

Raveem.