What's the Value of an Hereditary Peerage?

[marquess]

Now that the hereditary element of the House of Lords has been excluded from sitting, what is the value in having an hereditary peerage? The social distinction has been greatly diluted in recent times too the extent thata great deal of peers no longer bother with the Roll and some show indifference to producing legitimate offspring to succeed them. There is an article in the Complete Peerage about Irish peerages being of little value other than franking paper with a coat of arms. I fear that the hereditary peerage has now fallen into that category. 

[sven_me...@web.de]

There is nothing to fear about. Democracy is taking a big step forward in the UK.

[marquess]

I doubt that, Parliament is becoming more and more of a law unto itself. Abolition of jury trials, euthanasea bill, jailing peopole for posting on online, imposing migrants on rural areas etc.

[Henry W]

The answer as you say is "not much".  If peers have some wealth associated with the peerage then I imagine it helps to differentiate yours as "old money" but I doubt many care much about that distinction.  Whilst the peerage is not necessarily the cause, we shouldn't forget that hereditary peers are disroportionately influential in society, even if not as obvious as they once were.  

For some it will matter to maintain family tradition, especially if there was a particularly famous forebear (usually the first peer, but not always).

[Paul Theroff]

And now that there is virtually no constitutional significance to hereditary peerages, I expect that soon the House of Lords itself, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney General, etc., will be removed from involvement in adjudicating peerage claims, certifying newly inheriting peers, etc. There is now certainly no reason why any public officer or public expense should be involved in deciding such matters. 

[cb]

Yes.  The Magna Carta is being sidelined everywhere we look.  Trial by social media is a case in point.  Taking offence on behalf of third parties unknown to the offended ones in matters that do not touch on their lives at all but which they use as a flag of self righteousness in the hope that their support for a "cause" will bring them personal benefit.

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/420d20de-eb7d-42a5-9915-f44545d25e79n%40googlegroups.com.

[Patricia Light]

Although peers are disappearing from the house of lords, they will still exist just not in parliament (those that are ministers like Earl Howe, for example, will be given Life Peerages to allow the lords to still function). Despite some people wishing these people would disappear they will still exist, as nobody can choose their parents.

I believe it is up to the individual if they give up their peerage and that should not mean that their offspring should have too.

This bill, by the way, does not include the monarchy. That will not be touched (i have heard that the king likes Starmer and vice versa) dont know which interview this came from but that was the gist of it

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/CADSG-k%3D48%3DLK3ir1y6FHrx3Zo05pyw2%2BNSDjRSmeP6NDwaTzjQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Henry W]

Above Paul Theroff said:

And now that there is virtually no constitutional significance to hereditary peerages, I expect that soon the House of Lords itself, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney General, etc., will be removed from involvement in adjudicating peerage claims, certifying newly inheriting peers, etc. There is now certainly no reason why any public officer or public expense should be involved in deciding such matters. 

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill does explicitly remove the jurisdiction of the House of Lords from adjudicating peerage claims.

In the immediate future I assume the Lord Chancellor / Secretary of State for Justice will continue to admit peers to the Roll of the Peerage in line with the Royal Warrant of 2004.  It was discussed in debate that it is the government's position that any contested claims would be heard by a committee of the Privy Council (as they are for baronetcies).

Similarly there is a Roll of the Baronetage maintained by the Lord Chancellor under a 1910 Royal Warrant, and they have never held a position in the Constitution; and in Scotland there is the Lyon Office which is a publicly funded office for some hundreds of years and that seems to deal with heraldry and Clan Chiefs, which again are not constitutional functions.

Of course, nothing lasts forever, and I can definitely foresee a time when the state simply washes its hands of recognising or not hereditary peers / baronets / etc., but I think this is still a few decades off.

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

House of Lords will end of being renamed to the House of Senate and elected in similair to Australia and Canada. This way, there will be a number of elected members of this house, rather then an open warfare of creating tens of new Peers to suit the Government of the day.

Pointless staying as the House of Lords in the new context.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

At the very least, the idea of creating "Lords" anymore, once the change takes effect, makes no sense.

Brooke

[marquess]

Agreed, if we had a more traditionally inclined monarch we might see the creation of some hereditary peerages; as they would no longer be seen as interfering in politics. 

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

Totally agree there, maybe now, the King can create to those exceptionally a Peerage title as a reward and thank you from the Nation.