House of Lords, Prince Andrew introduced

[ThomasFoolery]

I just stumbled upon this video of Prince Andrew's introduction into the House of Lords. This is the video of the whole ceremony, not a newsreel or clips.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XYvhIl_CoSI

Almost certainly the last introduction of a member of the Royal Family, this might also be the last introduction ceremony of any hereditary member (excepting the ones who sit as life peers), but I'm not sure.

Kinda cool.

[marquess]

Thanks for that, who were the two dukes with him other than Gloucester and Kent?

[ThomasFoolery]

Not positive, but here's the Hansard for the ceremony. (The formatting's a bit wonky):

Page 1: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1987/feb/11/hrh-the-duke-of-york-introduced

Page 2:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1987/feb/11/his-royal-highness-the-duke-of-gloucester

Maybe Norfolk and Cholmondeley?

[andrewbe...@gmail.com]

It was Kent and Gloucester who were his supporters. It was also Norfolk (as Earl Marshal) and Cholmondeley (as Lord Great Chamberlain) that led the party into the Lords. Interesting to see Lord Hailsham sitting as Lord Chancellor prior to his retirement later that year.

[rcb1]

Actually I think that the only other peer in the procession was the Duke of Norfolk.  Apart from Black Rod (Sir John Gingell), the other person in ceremonial dress at the front of the procession is Sir Colin Cole, who was Garter King of Arms. 

Kinda cool.  

[colinp]

The Lord Great Chamberlain appears, carrying his wand, between The Earl Marshal and the Duke of Kent.  It must have been a privilege of peers who were of the Blood Royal to be accompanied by the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain in their introduction ceremony.  Other peers were attended by Garter and Black Rod only.

[Jonathan]

Thanks a lot for finding this clip.

It led me to wonder when cameras were allowed in the Lords, and the answer is 1983. Therefore, Prince Andrew's introduction is not only probably the last royal or hereditary peer whose introduction was filmed, but also the first!

There is also a short Pathe clip about Prince Charles's introduction, but it doesn't show inside the chamber at all as this wasn't allowed.

The Commons didn't allow cameras until 1989.

As for whether it is the last introduction of a hereditary member, given that it's highly unlikely the House of Lords Act 1999 will be repealed, I see two possibilities. One would be for a new hereditary peer to be created, and then to be elected as one of the 90 who are allowed to sit in the Lords, following the death or retirement of another peer. In those circumstances, I don't see why the newly sitting peer shouldn't have an introduction, even if he or she joined the Lords some time after the creation. The other is that a new hereditary peer is also created a life peer at the same time, for example if earldoms were resurrected for former PMs. The Letters Patent could then be worded to create both a hereditary and life peerage.

But I think this is into the realms of fantasy peerage!

[andrewbe...@gmail.com]

Indeed, is there anything stopping a person being given both a life and hereditary peerage at the same time (albeit not within the same letters patent)? The only impediment is of course that under the Life Peerages Act 1957 such a peerage must be at the rank of Baron. Likewise, there would be nothing stopping a life peer being given an hereditary peerage sometime after the life peerage.

A potential problem would be the creation of a large number of peerages at the same time, for example if the new hereditary peer was an Earl he would need have his earldom, plus the need for a subsidiary title to be held as a courtesy for the heir, plus any life peerage to enable them to take a seat. The number of titles created would increase the higher the title (although the Somerset dukedom does prove to be an exception) but would only be two with a viscount or hereditary barony.

Just some thoughts...

[colinp]

How did the ceremony differ when a hereditary peer by succession was introduced?

[Jonathan]

On Sunday, 24 September 2017 08:14:44 UTC+1, colinp wrote:

How did the ceremony differ when a hereditary peer by succession was introduced?

There was no ceremony; they just took the oath, as any peer sitting for the first time in that parliament would. Introduction is for newly created peers only. Indeed, newly elected hereditary peers today take their seats without an introduction.

[Jonathan]

On Saturday, 23 September 2017 16:12:39 UTC+1, andrewbe...@gmail.com wrote:

Indeed, is there anything stopping a person being given both a life and hereditary peerage at the same time (albeit not within the same letters patent)? The only impediment is of course that under the Life Peerages Act 1957 such a peerage must be at the rank of Baron. Likewise, there would be nothing stopping a life peer being given an hereditary peerage sometime after the life peerage.

A potential problem would be the creation of a large number of peerages at the same time, for example if the new hereditary peer was an Earl he would need have his earldom, plus the need for a subsidiary title to be held as a courtesy for the heir, plus any life peerage to enable them to take a seat. The number of titles created would increase the higher the title (although the Somerset dukedom does prove to be an exception) but would only be two with a viscount or hereditary barony.

Numerous hereditary peers were given life peerages in 1999, with a few more since. I don't see an issue with a distinguished individual being given an earldom, a viscountcy and a (hereditary) barony at once. The letters patent could presumably be worded to make the barony a life peerage, but otherwise be similar to Prince Andrew's, read during the video.

[ThomasFoolery]

The only time a hereditary peer by succession *would* get a full introduction is when they were the first to sit under their title. For example, the 2nd Viscount Daventry was jntroduced since his mother, 1st viscountess in her own right, did not (and could not) take her seat.

Hansard noting that introduction:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1962/dec/05/viscount-daventry#S5LV0245P0_19621205_HOL_3

I cannot think of/find an example off the top of my head, but this is also case where any peer simply never took his seat before he died, so his heir did need to be introduced.

I want to say that long, long ago all peers were introduced, but I think this goes way back. Furthermore, I think I read that the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain used to be in each ceremony, but in practice this was phased out. Thus, I don't think Royal Peers getting them was so much a privilege, as just pulling out all the stops.

[colinp]

Would an exception be Prince Charles as Duke of Cornwall.  It looks from the Pathe video that it was going to be a full introduction notwithstanding he was not the first holder of the title to sit.  Also there seemed to be at least three "supporters" holding wands, perhaps the Lord Chamberlain was there as well as the LGC and another

On Thursday, 21 September 2017 04:45:54 UTC+1, ThomasFoolery wrote:

[ThomasFoolery]

Hansard rundown of Charles' introduction:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1970/feb/11/hrh-the-prince-of-wales-introduced

[Richard R]

And, exceptionally, I believe the monarch's son & heir sat in the HoL as The PRINCE OF WALES.

[andrewbe...@gmail.com]

Regardless of which title he sat under be it Duke of Cornwall or any other the convention of the House of Lords is for members to be referred to by their highest title, for example life peerages given to, for example the Marquess of Salisbury, did not stop him from being referred to as a Marquess in the House (although in older records for voting the peerage in which they were summed is recorded). I was recently doing some research into the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bills and it was interesting to see the future Edward VII sitting and voting - he was recorded solely as HRH Prince of Wales.

[Jonathan]

On Monday, 25 September 2017 22:13:10 UTC+1, colinp wrote:

Would an exception be Prince Charles as Duke of Cornwall.  It looks from the Pathe video that it was going to be a full introduction notwithstanding he was not the first holder of the title to sit

The Wales and Cornwall titles aren't inherited in the usual sense, but merge with the crown, so are more like new creations for each holder, even if this is not strictly the case.

On Tuesday, 26 September 2017 07:42:42 UTC+1, Richard R wrote:

And, exceptionally, I believe the monarch's son & heir sat in the HoL as The PRINCE OF WALES.

I forget now which peer it was, whose title started with "W", who used to boast about how his coat peg at the House of Lords was next to the Prince of Wales's!

[andrewbe...@gmail.com]

I think it was Lord Walpole, I remember something mentioned about it during the BBC2 programme "Meet the Lords"

[colinp]

So if pre-1999 a grandson of the Sovereign were Heir Apparent he would not be Duke of Cornwall but could be created Prince of Wales - would he then have been entitled to a seat in the Lords?  I suppose the answer is that by custom (though not invariable) the Prince of Wales is also created Earl of Chester so would have been entitled to a seat on that basis though referred to in the Lords as PoW.  But if he wasn't created Earl of Chester as well? Bit hypothetical I know.

I also think that the title of Prince of Wales does merge in the Crown on the death of the holder but the Dukedom of Cornwall does not - it just goes into a sort of interregnum until a new holder becomes entitled.  If Prince Charles had no male issue and died in the lifetime of the Queen then Prince Andrew would automatically become Duke of Cornwall - there would be no merger in the Crown.

On Thursday, 21 September 2017 04:45:54 UTC+1, ThomasFoolery wrote:

[Richard R]

I think the title Duke of Cornwall may only be held by the monarch's eldest son AND heir apparent, ie a holder has to qualify on both those points.  So, to give some real life examples:

1 - On the death of James I & VI's eldest son Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, died unmarried and without legit. issue in 1612, James' next son, Charles (already Duke of York and Duke of Albany and later King CHARLES I), automatically became Duke of Cornwall and was created Prince of Wales &c in 1616. 

2 - Following the death of George II's eldest son Frederick, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall in March 1751, Frederick's eldest son (the future King GEORGE III) was created Prince of Wales in the following month. He couldn't hold the Cornwall dukedom, even though he was heir apparent, because he wasn't also the monarch's eldest son. Neither could the dukedom go to the George II's eldest surviving son, the Duke of Cumberland, as he wasn't also his father's heir apparent. So, no, Prince Andrew wouldn't become Duke of Cornwall under similar circumstances.

[Richard R]

Sorry Colin! Disregard my last point about Prince Andrew, as I see your note says if Charles died without male issue! Sorry!

[andrewbe...@gmail.com]

We do have to remember that the title Prince of Wales (created by Edward I) does pre-date that of Duke (created by Edward III): so the first holder was in fact PoW before he was DoC. The title of PoW is of course at the discretion of the monarch i.e. the heir must be created the PoW, for example neither George V nor Edward VIII were immediately created PoW upon their father's succeeding as King. Indeed the current PoW was created in 1958 (a few months before his 10th birthday).

To my (post-1066) recollection there have only been 2 kings that have succeeded their grandfathers: (1) Richard II succeeding Edward III; and (2) George III succeeding George II. Richard II was created PoW shortly after his father's death for political reasons and George III was created PoW approximately a month after his father's death. Richard II is a bad example given that Parliament etc was not constituted as it is today. However, George III had already been created Duke of Edinburgh so would already have had a seat in the Lords (to comment upon the first question directly).

[ThomasFoolery]

Was there any discussion, now that the succession to the crown has changed, of how the dukedom of Cornwall and the other titles that go with it, will be assumed goingforward. Would a firstborn daughter become the Duchess of Cornwall, Countess of Carick, Great Steward of Scotland?

is this all a matter of convention? Or are there actual ancient laws or Letters Patentthat would have to go and be changed?

[Richard R]

I thought about this at the time of discussions and arrangements to make the succession to the crown gender blind and, no, there was no mention made of what would happen to the titles given to the male heir apparent, in the event that we have a female heir apparent. It's not a matter of convention and they would have to change things by Act of Parliament. The problem has 'gone away' to a certain extent since the succession is currently secure in the male line to the third generation - to a time well beyond the lifetime of the present poster!

There have been discussions in the past - from the time when Princess Mary was HENRY VIII's heir up to when our own dear Queen was GEORGE VI's heir - to create a Princess of Wales. But all came to nought, and certainly long before considering what would have to be done to make that happen.