
#REDIRECT Hereditary peer
The Peerage in the United Kingdom includes several hereditary peers, as well as life peers. Hereditary peers hold titles that may be inherited; even peers who were granted, rather than inherited, hereditary titles are hereditary peers. Formerly, most of them were entitled to a seat in Parliament, but now, hereditary peers do not have an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. Ninety-two are permitted to sit in the House of Lords under the House of Lords Act 1999, although this reduction has been challenged in the European Court of Human Rights. An hereditary title is not necessarily a title of the peerage. For instance, Baronet and Baronet may pass on their titles, but they are not peers. Similarly, a non-hereditary title may still belong to the peerage, as evidenced by the case of the Prince of Wales and of life peers. ==Ranks and titles== The various ranks of the Peerage are, in descending order of rank, duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron; the feminine equivalents are duchess, marchioness, countess, viscountess and baroness respectively. In Scotland, however, "baron" is a feudal rank, and not one of the Peerage. The Scottish equivalent to the English barony is the "lordship of Parliament", the male holder thereof being known as a lord of Parliament. The House of Lords lists the Prince of Wales as a peerage, creating a sixth rank in addition to those listed above. As a practical matter, the holder of this title is almost always a Duke, so that he would be considered a peer regardless. However, other members of the British Royal Family who hold the title "Prince" or "Princess" are not peers, unless they are granted or inherit some other peerage (as is often the case). Peerage dignities are created by the Sovereign by either writs of summons or letters patent (''vide infra''). Under modern constitutional conventions, however, no peerage dignity would be created except upon the advice of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Many peers hold more than one hereditary title; for example, the same individual may be a duke, an earl, a viscount, and a baron by virtue of different peerages. In this case, the peer's eldest son may use one of the father's subsidiary titles as a ''courtesy'' title, but the son is not considered a peer in this situation. ==Inheritance of titles== The mode of inheritance of an hereditary peerage is determined by the method of its creation. Titles may be created by writ of summons or by letters patent. The former is merely a summons of an individual to Parliament—it does not explicitly confer a peerage—and descent is always to fee tail, male and female. The latter method is used to explicitly create a peerage and name the dignity in question. Letters patent may state the course of descent; normally, only male heirs are allowed to succeed to the peerage. In all cases, only legitimate children may succeed to a title. Under Scottish law, an illegitimate child is legitimated by a future marriage of the parents. Under English and British law, however, a child is illegitimate if the parents are unmarried at the time of birth, and remains illegitimate even after a marriage between them. Thus, a bastard child may succeed to a Scottish peerage, but not an English, Irish or British one, if the parents marry after the birth. Generally, a peerage passes to the next holder only after the holder for the time being dies. However, Edward IV of England introduced a procedure known as a writ of acceleration, whereby it is possible for the eldest son of a peer with multiple titles to sit in the House of Lords by virtue of one of his father's subsidiary dignities. A title becomes ''extinct'' when all possible heirs (as provided by the letters patent) have died out. A title becomes ''dormant'' if no person has claimed the title, or if no claim has been satisfactorily proven. A title goes into ''abeyance'' if there is more than one person equally qualified to be the holder. In the past, peerages were sometimes ''forfeit'' or ''attainted'' under Acts of Parliament, most often for the treason of the holder. The blood of an attainted peer was considered "corrupted", so his descendants could not inherit the title. If all descendants of the attainted peer were to die out, however, then an heir from another branch of the family not affected by the attainder may take the title. The Forfeiture Act 1870 abolished corruption of blood; instead of losing the peerage, a peer convicted of treason would merely be disqualified from sitting in Parliament for the period of imprisonment. The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 permitted the Crown to ''suspend'' peerages if their holders had fought against the United Kingdom during the World War I. Guilt was to be determined by a committee of the Privy Council; either House of Parliament could reject the committee's report within forty days of its presentation. In 1919, George V of the United Kingdom issued an Order-in-Council suspending the Duke of Albany (together with its subsidiary peerages, the Earl of Clarence and the Baron of Arklow), the Duke of Cumberland (along with the Earl of Armagh) and the Viscount Taaffe (along with the Baron of Ballymote). Under the Titles Deprivation Act, the successors to the peerages may petition the Crown for a reinstatement of the titles; so far, none of them have chosen to do so. A peer may also ''disclaim'' an hereditary peerage under the Peerage Act 1963. To do so, the peer must deliver an instrument of disclaimer to the Lord Chancellor within twelve months of succeeding to the peerage, or, if under the age of twenty-one at the time of succession, within twelve months of becoming twenty-one years old. If, at the time of succession, the peer is a member of the House of Commons, then the instrument must be delivered within one month of succession; meanwhile, the peer may not sit or vote in the House of Commons. Prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, an hereditary peer could not disclaim a peerage after having applied for a writ of summons to Parliament; now, however, hereditary peers do not have the automatic right to a writ of summons to the House. Irish peerages may not be disclaimed. A peer who disclaims the peerage loses all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage; his wife is similarly affected. No further hereditary peerages may be conferred upon the person, but life peerages may be. The peerage remains without a holder until the death of the peer making the disclaimer, when it descends normally. A title held by someone who becomes monarch is said to ''merge in the crown'' and ceases to exist, for the Sovereign cannot hold a dignity from himself. The Duke of Cornwall and that of Duke of Rothesay, and the Earl of Carrick, are special cases, which when not in use are said to ''lapse to the crown'': they are construed as existing, but held by no one, during such periods. These peerages are also special because they are never directly inherited. The Dukedom of Cornwall was held formerly by the eldest son of the King of England, and the Dukedom of Rothesay, the Earldom of Carrick, and certain non-peerage titles (Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland) by the eldest son of the King of Scotland. Since those titles have been united, the dukedoms and associated subsidiary titles are held by the eldest son of the monarch. In Scotland, the title ''Duke of Rothesay'' is used for life. In England and Northern Ireland, the title ''Duke of Cornwall'' is used until the heir-apparent is created Prince of Wales. At the same time as the Principality is created, the Duke is also created Earl of Chester. The earldom is a special case, because it is not hereditary, instead revesting or merging in the Crown if the Prince succeeds to the Crown or predeceases the monarch. The Dukedom of Cornwall is associated with the Duchy of Cornwall; the former is a peerage dignity, while the latter is an estate whose income goes to the Duke of Cornwall, or, when there is no duke, to the Sovereign. The only other Duchy in the United Kingdom is the Duchy of Lancaster, which is also an estate, rather than a peerage dignity. The Dukedom of Lancaster merged in the Crown when Henry V of England became King Henry V. Nonetheless, the ''Duchy'' of Lancaster still continues to exist, theoretically run by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Normally, however, the Chancellor does not exercise any actual duties related to the Duchy, so he is normally available as a Minister without Portfolio. The Duchy is the inherited property that belongs personally to the monarch, rather than to the Crown. Thus, while income from the Crown Estate is turned over to the Exchequer in return for a civil list payment, the income from the Duchy forms a part of the Privy Purse, the personal funds of the Sovereign. ==Writs of summons== At the beginning of each new Parliament, each peer who has established his right to attend Parliament is issued a writ of summons. Without the writ, no peer may sit or vote in Parliament. Writs of summons generally follow the same form. Firstly, they set out the titles of the Sovereign, and then those of the recipient. Next, they note the date for Parliament's calling and the reason for its calling. This portion of the writ differs based on whether Parliament is at the time sitting, or prorogued, or dissolved. Then, after commanding the recipient to attend, the writ indicates that the Sovereign him or herself witnesses it. The form of writs issued while Parliament is dissolved is: :''Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen Head of the Commonwealth Defender of the Faith To Our right trusty and well beloved ''XXXX'' Chevalier Greeting.'' :''Whereas by the advice and assent of Our Council for certain arduous and urgent affairs concerning Us the state and defence of Our United Kingdom and the Church We have ordered a certain Parliament to be holden to Our City of Westminster on the ''XX'' day of ''XX'' next ensuing and there to treat and have conference with the Prelates Great Men and Peers of Our Realm We strictly enjoining Command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us that the weightness of the said affairs and imminent perils considered (waiving all excuses) you be at the said day and place personally present with Us and with the said Prelates Great Men and Peers to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid And this as you regard Us and Our honour and the safety and defence of the said Kingdom and Church and dispatch of the said affairs in nowise do you omit Witness Ourself at Westminster the ''XX'' day of ''XX'' in the ''XX'' year of Our Reign.'' In the case of writs issued when Parliament is prorogued, the form of the first sentence of the second paragraph changes to: :''Whereas by reason of certain arduous and urgent affairs concerning Us the State and defence of Our United Kingdom and the Church We did lately with the advice and consent of Our Council ordain Our present Parliament to be holden at Our City of Westminster on the ''XX'' day of ''XX'' in the ''XX'' year of Our Reign which Parliament hath been from that time by several adjournments and prorogations adjourned prorogued and continued to and until the ''XX'' day of ''XX'' now next ensuing at Our City aforesaid to be then there holden. We strictly enjoining Command ...'' In the case of writs issued during a session of Parliament, the form of the first sentence of the second paragraph changes to: ''Whereas Our Parliament for arduous and urgent affairs concerning Us the state and defence of Our United Kingdom and the Church is now met at Our City of Westminster We strictly enjoining Command ...'' It is established precedent that the Sovereign may not deny writs of summons to qualified peers. In 1626, King Charles I of England ordered that the writ of summons of John Digby, 1st Earl of Bristol not issue. Lord Bristol had been charged with treason, but was never tried. He complained to the House of Lords, which resolved that the denial of a writ to an eligible peer was without precedent and that the Sovereign should immediately issue a writ of summons, which did occur. Another case to be considered is when writs of summons were issued to those who were ''not'' peers. In such cases, the individual who received the writ and took a seat in Parliament ''ipso facto'' became a peer. In fact, most ancient baronies are deemed to have been created merely by summoning an individual to Parliament, thereby making him a peer. Even if a writ of summons is issued, however, a peerage was not created if the recipient failed to take his seat in Parliament, for the writ commands the recipient to be present in Parliament "waiving all excuses". In ''Abergavenny's (Lord) Case'', the House of Lords ruled that, for a peerage to be created, the recipient of the writ must "come to the parliament, and there sit, according to the commandment of the writ; for until that, the writ did not take its effect". Even if the writ was issued in error, the recipient became a peer, if he had taken his seat in Parliament. If the mistake was discovered prior to the taking of the seat, the Sovereign could issue a ''writ of supersedeas'' revoking the erroneous writ of summons. The writ of supersedeas has not been used in recent times; in the words of the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, "it certainly has not been translated into modern English". If the writ of supersedeas is not issued, and the recipient of the writ does take his seat in the House of Lords, the creation of the peerage cannot be reversed. It is, however, extremely doubtful whether any new peerages could be created in this manner since the adoption of the House of Lords Act 1999. Peerages created by writ of summons are presumed to be inheritable only by the recipient's ''heirs of the body.'' The House of Lords has settled such a presumption in several cases, including ''Grey's (Lord) Case'' of 1640, the ''Clifton Barony Case'' of 1673, the ''Vaux Peerage Case'' of 1837, the ''Braye Peerage Case'' of 1839 and the ''Hastings Peerage Case'' of 1841. The meaning of ''heir of the body'' is determined by common law. Essentially, descent is by the rules of primogeniture, a mechanism whereby normally, male descendants of the peer take precedence over female descendants, with children representing their deceased ancestors, and wherein the senior line of descent always takes precedence over the junior line per each gender. These rules, however, are amended by the proviso whereby sisters (and their heirs) are considered co-heirs; seniority of the line is irrelevant when succession is through a female line. In other words, no woman inherits because she is older than her sisters. If all of the co-heirs but one die, then the surviving co-heir succeeds to the title. Otherwise, the title remains abeyant until the Sovereign "terminates" the abeyance in favour of one of the co-heirs. The termination of an abeyance is entirely at the discretion of the Crown. A writ of acceleration is a type of writ of summons that enables the eldest son of a peer to attend the House of Lords using one of his father's subsidiary titles. The title is strictly not inherited by the eldest son, however; it remains vested in the father. A writ may only be granted if the title being accelerated is a subsidiary one, and not the main title, and if the beneficiary of the writ is the heir-apparent of the actual holder of the title. There have been a total of ninety-four writs of acceleration issued since Edward IV issued the first one, including four writs issued in the previous century. The only individual who recently held a title by writ of acceleration is Viscount Cranborne, the Barony of Cecil of Essendon actually being held by his father, the Marquess of Salisbury. (Viscount Cranborne has, upon the death of his father, succeeded to the marquessate.) There are no Scottish peerages created by writ; neither can Scottish baronies go into abeyance, for Scots law does not hold sisters as equal heirs regardless of age. Furthermore, there is only one extant barony by writ in the Peerage of Ireland, that of La Poer, now held by the Marquess of Waterford. (Certain other baronies were originally created by writ but later confirmed by letters patent.) ==Letters patent== More often, letters patent are used to create peerages. Letters patent must explicitly name the recipient of the title and specify the course of descent; the exact meaning of the term is determined by common law. Normally, the patent specifies the peer's ''heirs-male of the body'' as successors; in such a case, the rules of agnatic succession apply, meaning that succession is through the male line only. Some very old titles, like the Baron Arlington, may pass to ''heirs of the body'' (not just heirs-male), these follow the same rules of descent as do baronies by writ, and seem able to fall into abeyance as well. Many Scottish titles allow for passage to ''heirs-general of the body'', in which case the rules of male primogeniture apply; they do not fall into abeyance, as under Scots law, sisters are not treated as equal co-heirs. English and British letters patent that do not specify a course of descent are invalid, though the same is not true for the letters patent creating peers in the Peerage of Scotland. The House of Lords has ruled in certain cases that when the course of descent is not specified, or when the letters patent are lost, the title descends to heirs-male. It is possible for some patents to allow for succession by someone other than an heir-male. Several instances may be cited: the Earl Nelson (to an elder brother and his heirs-male), the Earl Roberts (to a daughter and her heirs-male), the Earl Amherst (to a nephew and his heirs-male) and the Duke of Dover (to a younger son and his heirs-male while the eldest son is still alive). In many cases, the peer in question had no sons, and the special grant was made to preclude an extinction of the peerage. But in all cases the course of descent specified in the patent must be known in common law. For instance, the Crown may not make a "shifting limitation" in the letters patent; in other words, the patent may not vest the peerage in an individual and then, based on the occurrence of some event other than death (such as succession to a higher title) shift the title to another person. The doctrine was established in the ''Buckhurst Peerage Case'' (1876), in which the House of Lords deemed invalid letters patent aimed to keep the Barony of Buckhurst separate from the Earldom of De La Warr. The patent stipulated that, if the holder of the barony ever inherited the earldom, then he would be deprived of the barony, which would instead pass to the next successor as if the deprived holder died without issue. Also, it is necessary for English patents to include limitation "of the body", as in "heirs-male of the body". The limitation indicates that only lineal descendants of the original peer may succeed to the peerage. In some very rare instances, the limitation was left out. In the ''Devon Peerage Case'' of 1831, the House of Lords permitted an heir who was a collateral descendant of the original peer to take his seat. The precedent, however, was reversed in 1859, when the House of Lords decided in the ''Wiltes Peerage Case'' that a patent that did not include the words "of the body" would be held void. Letters patent are not absolute; they may be amended or revoked by Act of Parliament. For example, Parliament amended the letters patent creating the Duke of Marlborough in 1706. The patent originally provided that the dukedom could be inherited by the heirs-male of the body of the first duke, Captain-General Sir John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. One son had died in infancy and the other died in 1703 from smallpox. Under Parliament's amendment to the patent, designed to allow the famous general's honour to survive after his death, the dukedom was allowed to pass to the Duke's daughters, the Harriet Godolphin, Countess of Godolphin, the Anne Churchill, Countess of Sunderland, the Elizabeth Churchill, Countess of Bridgewater and the Mary Churchill, Duchess of Montagu, and their heirs-male, and thereafter "to all and every other the issue male and female, lineally descending of or from the said Duke of Marlborough, in such manner and for such estate as the same are before limited to the before-mentioned issue of the said Duke, it being intended that the said honours shall continue, remain, and be invested in all the issue of the said Duke, so long as any such issue male or female shall continue, and be held by them severally and successively in manner and form aforesaid, the elder and the descendants of every elder issue to be preferred before the younger of such issue." ==The number of hereditary peers== The Peerage used to be an extremely small and exclusive institution. When Henry VII of England called his first Parliament in the fifteenth century, there were only twenty-nine peers. The Tudor rulers made very few creations of peerages; at the death of Queen Elizabeth, there were just fifty-nine peers in the realm. {| border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse; margin:1em; float: right;" |+ Creation of English peerage
dignities by Stuart monarchs |- bgcolor="#dddddd" align="center" ! Sovereign !! Reign !! Peers |- | James I || 1603–1625 || align="right" | 62 |- | Charles I || 1625–1649 || align="right" | 59 |- | Charles II || 1660–1685 || align="right" | 64 |- | James II || 1685–1689 || align="right" | 8 |- | William III & Mary II || 1689–1702 || align="right" | 30 |- | Anne || 1702–1714 || align="right" | 30 |- style="font-weight: bold;" | Total || 1603–1714 || align="right" | 253 |} Thereafter, however, the Peerage experienced a dramatic swelling due to the generosity of the Stuart monarchs. By the time of Queen Anne of Great Britain's death, there were no fewer than one hundred and sixty-eight peers. At one point, in order to obtain a majority in the House of Lords in her favour, Queen Anne created twelve peers in one day—more than Elizabeth I had created during an entire reign that had lasted for more than half of a century. Several peers were alarmed at the rapid increase in the size of the Peerage, fearing that their individual importance and power would decrease as the number of Peers increased. Therefore, in 1719, a bill was introduced in the House of Lords to place a limitation on the Crown's power. It sought to permit no more than six new creations, and thereafter one new creation for each other title that became extinct. It did allow, however, the Crown to bestow titles on members of the Royal Family without any such limitation. The Bill was rejected in its final stage in the Lords, but it was passed when it was re-introduced in the next year. Nonetheless, the House of Commons rejected the bill 269 to 177. George III of the United Kingdom was especially profuse with the creation of titles, mainly due to the desire of some of his Prime Ministers to obtain a majority in the House of Lords. During his twelve years in power, Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford had about thirty new peerages created. During William Pitt the Younger's seventeen-year tenure, over one hundred and forty new peerages had been awarded. {| border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse; margin:1em; float: right;" |+ Hereditary Peers in 1999 |- bgcolor="#dddddd" align="center" ! Type !! Male !! Female !! Total |- | Prince || align="right" | 1 || align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 1 |- | Duke || align="right" | 28 || align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 28 |- | Marquess || align="right" | 34 || align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 34 |- | Earl || align="right" | 170 || align="right" | 5 || align="right" | 175 |- | Viscount || align="right" | 102 || align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 102 |- | Baron/Lord || align="right" | 407 || align="right" | 12 || align="right" | 419 |- style="font-weight: bold;" | Total || align="right" | 742 || align="right" | 17 || align="right" | 759 |} In 1801, Parliament did impose a restriction on the creation of peerages, but only in the Peerage of Ireland. Under the 1801 Act of Union combining Ireland and Great Britain into the United Kingdom, until the number of Irish peers (excluding those who also hold British or English peerages) was reduced to one-hundred, the Sovereign could not create a new Irish peerage until ''three'' previous titles became extinct. After the number of Irish peers reached one hundred, the Sovereign could create new titles as often as may have been necessary to maintain that number. Still, there remained no restrictions on creations in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Thus, the Peerage continued to swell through the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, there were even more creations since Prime Ministers were eager to secure majorities in the House of Lords. Peerages were handed out not to honour the recipient but to give him a seat in the House of Lords. However, with the accession of the The Labour Party (UK) government of Harold Wilson in 1964, the practice of granting hereditary peerages effectively stopped. Since 1964, only five hereditary peerages have been granted—two (the Prince Andrew, Duke of York and the Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex) for members of the royal family, and three additional creations (the William Whitelaw, 1st Viscount Whitelaw, the George Thomas, 1st Viscount Tonypandy and the Earl of Stockton) under Margaret Thatcher government in the mid-1980s. The two Viscounts were childless, and their titles are now extinct; and Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton received the Earldom often awarded to retiring Prime Ministers from the House of Commons. ==References== *[http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/ Blackstone, W. (1765). ''Commentaries on the Laws of England''. Oxford: Clarendon Press.] *[http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Peerage_Law.htm Cox, N. (1997). "The British Peerage: The Legal Standing of the Peerage and Baronetage in the overseas realms of the Crown with particular reference to New Zealand." New Zealand Universities Law Review. (Vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 379–401).] *[http://home.freeuk.com/don-aitken/emayvols.html Farnborough, T. E. May, 1st Baron. (1896). Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George the Third, 11th ed. London: Longmans, Green and Co.] *[http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/106i/106i01.htm HL 106-I. (1998–1999).] *[http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/19990034.htm House of Lords Act 1999. (c. 34). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.] *[http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990511/text/90511-19.htm House of Lords Debates (1998–1999). Vol. 600, col. 1156.] *[http://www.hereditarypeers.com/compensation.htm McCallion, P. (2003). Letter to The Earl Alexander of Tunis.] *"Peerage." (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed. London: Cambridge University Press. *[http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/peer63.htm Peerage Act 1963. (1963 c. 48). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.] *[http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/titledep.htm Titles Deprivation Act 1917. (7 & 8 George 5 c 47). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.] Peerage
==Featured Article candidacy comments (promoted)== ===Hereditary peer=== ''(Uncontested -- July 7)'' Self-nomination. -- User:Lord Emsworth *Support User:172 05:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) *Support. I like several of the other peerage-related articles too. User:81.168.80.170 19:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) *Support - seems rather complete and should do fine alongside the already FA peerage article (other articles in the series also look like they might be featurable). --User:Maveric149 06:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) *Support this Emsworth work, too. User:Jdforrester User_talk:Jdforrester ==Prince?== With Reference to Prince as Degree within the British Peerage "It is also possible to suggest that a principality is a peerage dignity." Whereas it possible to suggest,it is is quite wrong. There are five degrees of the British peerage, no more, no less. Of course I understand the source of confusion as the House of Lords Act 1999 states that "In this Act "hereditary peerage" includes the principality of Wales and the earldom of Chester." But note that whilst that may be the case for "this Act" it is not otherwise the case. To explain further. If you examine the Explanatory Notes produced in conjunction with the original House Of Lords Bill and in particular the Commentary on Clauses, you will see that it includes the following text. (See http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmbills/034/en/99034x--.htm) Clause 1: Exclusion of hereditary peers 5. The main provision of the Bill ends membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.... 6. The exclusion from membership applies to all those who are members of the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage, including - members of the Royal Family who have the right to sit and vote in the House (the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of York, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent); Here the authors of the bill are expressing their intentions as regards the legislation they wish enacted. Specifically they wish to ensure that no member of the Royal Family is a member of the House of Lords and since the only member of the royal family not known under a peerage dignity is the Prince of Wales it is felt necessary to include the Principality of Wales within the definition of an hereditary peerage for the purposes of the Act. This is simply a typical belt and braces approach to legislation. The authors wished to ensure that no Prince of Wales later emerged and claimed that he was enitled to a seat in the House of Lords on the basis that he was not named in the act. The whole point is this. The House of Lords Act 1999 does not support the contention that Prince is a degree within the British Peerage but quite the reverse, as if that where the case it would not have been neccessary to the specific clause that re-defined what constituted an herditary peerage. I hope that is clear. Unfortunately it is neccessary to stamp on this sort of amateurish nonsense as otherwise it percolates all over the internet and generates its own validity through constant repetition. ProfSmith :As for the House of Lords Act 1999, I don't think it has any bearing on the issue. If the Principality of Wales were indeed a peerage dignity, the Act would have to be so worded to ensure that it is not treated as a life peerage dignity. :It appears that even the editors of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica seem to have got this wrong, then: "Until recent years the title prince was never conferred on anybody except the heir-apparent to the Crown, and his principality is a peerage." It was on the basis of this remark—not on the basis of confusion caused by the House of Lords Act—that the reference to the Principality of Wales had been added. -- User:Lord Emsworth 14:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::ISTM that this paragraph should be clarified, at least, to indicate that although some authorities consider the Principality of Wales to be a peerage (and the point is moot, since I don't believe anyone has been granted this title in modern times who was not already a Duke), other members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the title "Prince" are not considered hereditary peers by virtue of that title. User:RussBlau 17:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Hereditary_peer:
Hereditary_Peer
Hereditary_peer
Hereditary_peer
Hereditary_peer.ogg
Hereditary_peers
Hereditary Peer
#REDIRECT Hereditary peer
Hereditary peer
The Peerage in the United Kingdom includes several hereditary peers, as well as life peers. Hereditary peers hold titles that may be inherited; even peers who were granted, rather than inherited, hereditary titles are hereditary peers. Formerly, most of them were entitled to a seat in Parliament, but now, hereditary peers do not have an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. Ninety-two are permitted to sit in the House of Lords under the House of Lords Act 1999, although this reduction has been challenged in the European Court of Human Rights. An hereditary title is not necessarily a title of the peerage. For instance, Baronet and Baronet may pass on their titles, but they are not peers. Similarly, a non-hereditary title may still belong to the peerage, as evidenced by the case of the Prince of Wales and of life peers. ==Ranks and titles== The various ranks of the Peerage are, in descending order of rank, duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron; the feminine equivalents are duchess, marchioness, countess, viscountess and baroness respectively. In Scotland, however, "baron" is a feudal rank, and not one of the Peerage. The Scottish equivalent to the English barony is the "lordship of Parliament", the male holder thereof being known as a lord of Parliament. The House of Lords lists the Prince of Wales as a peerage, creating a sixth rank in addition to those listed above. As a practical matter, the holder of this title is almost always a Duke, so that he would be considered a peer regardless. However, other members of the British Royal Family who hold the title "Prince" or "Princess" are not peers, unless they are granted or inherit some other peerage (as is often the case). Peerage dignities are created by the Sovereign by either writs of summons or letters patent (''vide infra''). Under modern constitutional conventions, however, no peerage dignity would be created except upon the advice of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Many peers hold more than one hereditary title; for example, the same individual may be a duke, an earl, a viscount, and a baron by virtue of different peerages. In this case, the peer's eldest son may use one of the father's subsidiary titles as a ''courtesy'' title, but the son is not considered a peer in this situation. ==Inheritance of titles== The mode of inheritance of an hereditary peerage is determined by the method of its creation. Titles may be created by writ of summons or by letters patent. The former is merely a summons of an individual to Parliament—it does not explicitly confer a peerage—and descent is always to fee tail, male and female. The latter method is used to explicitly create a peerage and name the dignity in question. Letters patent may state the course of descent; normally, only male heirs are allowed to succeed to the peerage. In all cases, only legitimate children may succeed to a title. Under Scottish law, an illegitimate child is legitimated by a future marriage of the parents. Under English and British law, however, a child is illegitimate if the parents are unmarried at the time of birth, and remains illegitimate even after a marriage between them. Thus, a bastard child may succeed to a Scottish peerage, but not an English, Irish or British one, if the parents marry after the birth. Generally, a peerage passes to the next holder only after the holder for the time being dies. However, Edward IV of England introduced a procedure known as a writ of acceleration, whereby it is possible for the eldest son of a peer with multiple titles to sit in the House of Lords by virtue of one of his father's subsidiary dignities. A title becomes ''extinct'' when all possible heirs (as provided by the letters patent) have died out. A title becomes ''dormant'' if no person has claimed the title, or if no claim has been satisfactorily proven. A title goes into ''abeyance'' if there is more than one person equally qualified to be the holder. In the past, peerages were sometimes ''forfeit'' or ''attainted'' under Acts of Parliament, most often for the treason of the holder. The blood of an attainted peer was considered "corrupted", so his descendants could not inherit the title. If all descendants of the attainted peer were to die out, however, then an heir from another branch of the family not affected by the attainder may take the title. The Forfeiture Act 1870 abolished corruption of blood; instead of losing the peerage, a peer convicted of treason would merely be disqualified from sitting in Parliament for the period of imprisonment. The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 permitted the Crown to ''suspend'' peerages if their holders had fought against the United Kingdom during the World War I. Guilt was to be determined by a committee of the Privy Council; either House of Parliament could reject the committee's report within forty days of its presentation. In 1919, George V of the United Kingdom issued an Order-in-Council suspending the Duke of Albany (together with its subsidiary peerages, the Earl of Clarence and the Baron of Arklow), the Duke of Cumberland (along with the Earl of Armagh) and the Viscount Taaffe (along with the Baron of Ballymote). Under the Titles Deprivation Act, the successors to the peerages may petition the Crown for a reinstatement of the titles; so far, none of them have chosen to do so. A peer may also ''disclaim'' an hereditary peerage under the Peerage Act 1963. To do so, the peer must deliver an instrument of disclaimer to the Lord Chancellor within twelve months of succeeding to the peerage, or, if under the age of twenty-one at the time of succession, within twelve months of becoming twenty-one years old. If, at the time of succession, the peer is a member of the House of Commons, then the instrument must be delivered within one month of succession; meanwhile, the peer may not sit or vote in the House of Commons. Prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, an hereditary peer could not disclaim a peerage after having applied for a writ of summons to Parliament; now, however, hereditary peers do not have the automatic right to a writ of summons to the House. Irish peerages may not be disclaimed. A peer who disclaims the peerage loses all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage; his wife is similarly affected. No further hereditary peerages may be conferred upon the person, but life peerages may be. The peerage remains without a holder until the death of the peer making the disclaimer, when it descends normally. A title held by someone who becomes monarch is said to ''merge in the crown'' and ceases to exist, for the Sovereign cannot hold a dignity from himself. The Duke of Cornwall and that of Duke of Rothesay, and the Earl of Carrick, are special cases, which when not in use are said to ''lapse to the crown'': they are construed as existing, but held by no one, during such periods. These peerages are also special because they are never directly inherited. The Dukedom of Cornwall was held formerly by the eldest son of the King of England, and the Dukedom of Rothesay, the Earldom of Carrick, and certain non-peerage titles (Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland) by the eldest son of the King of Scotland. Since those titles have been united, the dukedoms and associated subsidiary titles are held by the eldest son of the monarch. In Scotland, the title ''Duke of Rothesay'' is used for life. In England and Northern Ireland, the title ''Duke of Cornwall'' is used until the heir-apparent is created Prince of Wales. At the same time as the Principality is created, the Duke is also created Earl of Chester. The earldom is a special case, because it is not hereditary, instead revesting or merging in the Crown if the Prince succeeds to the Crown or predeceases the monarch. The Dukedom of Cornwall is associated with the Duchy of Cornwall; the former is a peerage dignity, while the latter is an estate whose income goes to the Duke of Cornwall, or, when there is no duke, to the Sovereign. The only other Duchy in the United Kingdom is the Duchy of Lancaster, which is also an estate, rather than a peerage dignity. The Dukedom of Lancaster merged in the Crown when Henry V of England became King Henry V. Nonetheless, the ''Duchy'' of Lancaster still continues to exist, theoretically run by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Normally, however, the Chancellor does not exercise any actual duties related to the Duchy, so he is normally available as a Minister without Portfolio. The Duchy is the inherited property that belongs personally to the monarch, rather than to the Crown. Thus, while income from the Crown Estate is turned over to the Exchequer in return for a civil list payment, the income from the Duchy forms a part of the Privy Purse, the personal funds of the Sovereign. ==Writs of summons== At the beginning of each new Parliament, each peer who has established his right to attend Parliament is issued a writ of summons. Without the writ, no peer may sit or vote in Parliament. Writs of summons generally follow the same form. Firstly, they set out the titles of the Sovereign, and then those of the recipient. Next, they note the date for Parliament's calling and the reason for its calling. This portion of the writ differs based on whether Parliament is at the time sitting, or prorogued, or dissolved. Then, after commanding the recipient to attend, the writ indicates that the Sovereign him or herself witnesses it. The form of writs issued while Parliament is dissolved is: :''Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen Head of the Commonwealth Defender of the Faith To Our right trusty and well beloved ''XXXX'' Chevalier Greeting.'' :''Whereas by the advice and assent of Our Council for certain arduous and urgent affairs concerning Us the state and defence of Our United Kingdom and the Church We have ordered a certain Parliament to be holden to Our City of Westminster on the ''XX'' day of ''XX'' next ensuing and there to treat and have conference with the Prelates Great Men and Peers of Our Realm We strictly enjoining Command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us that the weightness of the said affairs and imminent perils considered (waiving all excuses) you be at the said day and place personally present with Us and with the said Prelates Great Men and Peers to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid And this as you regard Us and Our honour and the safety and defence of the said Kingdom and Church and dispatch of the said affairs in nowise do you omit Witness Ourself at Westminster the ''XX'' day of ''XX'' in the ''XX'' year of Our Reign.'' In the case of writs issued when Parliament is prorogued, the form of the first sentence of the second paragraph changes to: :''Whereas by reason of certain arduous and urgent affairs concerning Us the State and defence of Our United Kingdom and the Church We did lately with the advice and consent of Our Council ordain Our present Parliament to be holden at Our City of Westminster on the ''XX'' day of ''XX'' in the ''XX'' year of Our Reign which Parliament hath been from that time by several adjournments and prorogations adjourned prorogued and continued to and until the ''XX'' day of ''XX'' now next ensuing at Our City aforesaid to be then there holden. We strictly enjoining Command ...'' In the case of writs issued during a session of Parliament, the form of the first sentence of the second paragraph changes to: ''Whereas Our Parliament for arduous and urgent affairs concerning Us the state and defence of Our United Kingdom and the Church is now met at Our City of Westminster We strictly enjoining Command ...'' It is established precedent that the Sovereign may not deny writs of summons to qualified peers. In 1626, King Charles I of England ordered that the writ of summons of John Digby, 1st Earl of Bristol not issue. Lord Bristol had been charged with treason, but was never tried. He complained to the House of Lords, which resolved that the denial of a writ to an eligible peer was without precedent and that the Sovereign should immediately issue a writ of summons, which did occur. Another case to be considered is when writs of summons were issued to those who were ''not'' peers. In such cases, the individual who received the writ and took a seat in Parliament ''ipso facto'' became a peer. In fact, most ancient baronies are deemed to have been created merely by summoning an individual to Parliament, thereby making him a peer. Even if a writ of summons is issued, however, a peerage was not created if the recipient failed to take his seat in Parliament, for the writ commands the recipient to be present in Parliament "waiving all excuses". In ''Abergavenny's (Lord) Case'', the House of Lords ruled that, for a peerage to be created, the recipient of the writ must "come to the parliament, and there sit, according to the commandment of the writ; for until that, the writ did not take its effect". Even if the writ was issued in error, the recipient became a peer, if he had taken his seat in Parliament. If the mistake was discovered prior to the taking of the seat, the Sovereign could issue a ''writ of supersedeas'' revoking the erroneous writ of summons. The writ of supersedeas has not been used in recent times; in the words of the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, "it certainly has not been translated into modern English". If the writ of supersedeas is not issued, and the recipient of the writ does take his seat in the House of Lords, the creation of the peerage cannot be reversed. It is, however, extremely doubtful whether any new peerages could be created in this manner since the adoption of the House of Lords Act 1999. Peerages created by writ of summons are presumed to be inheritable only by the recipient's ''heirs of the body.'' The House of Lords has settled such a presumption in several cases, including ''Grey's (Lord) Case'' of 1640, the ''Clifton Barony Case'' of 1673, the ''Vaux Peerage Case'' of 1837, the ''Braye Peerage Case'' of 1839 and the ''Hastings Peerage Case'' of 1841. The meaning of ''heir of the body'' is determined by common law. Essentially, descent is by the rules of primogeniture, a mechanism whereby normally, male descendants of the peer take precedence over female descendants, with children representing their deceased ancestors, and wherein the senior line of descent always takes precedence over the junior line per each gender. These rules, however, are amended by the proviso whereby sisters (and their heirs) are considered co-heirs; seniority of the line is irrelevant when succession is through a female line. In other words, no woman inherits because she is older than her sisters. If all of the co-heirs but one die, then the surviving co-heir succeeds to the title. Otherwise, the title remains abeyant until the Sovereign "terminates" the abeyance in favour of one of the co-heirs. The termination of an abeyance is entirely at the discretion of the Crown. A writ of acceleration is a type of writ of summons that enables the eldest son of a peer to attend the House of Lords using one of his father's subsidiary titles. The title is strictly not inherited by the eldest son, however; it remains vested in the father. A writ may only be granted if the title being accelerated is a subsidiary one, and not the main title, and if the beneficiary of the writ is the heir-apparent of the actual holder of the title. There have been a total of ninety-four writs of acceleration issued since Edward IV issued the first one, including four writs issued in the previous century. The only individual who recently held a title by writ of acceleration is Viscount Cranborne, the Barony of Cecil of Essendon actually being held by his father, the Marquess of Salisbury. (Viscount Cranborne has, upon the death of his father, succeeded to the marquessate.) There are no Scottish peerages created by writ; neither can Scottish baronies go into abeyance, for Scots law does not hold sisters as equal heirs regardless of age. Furthermore, there is only one extant barony by writ in the Peerage of Ireland, that of La Poer, now held by the Marquess of Waterford. (Certain other baronies were originally created by writ but later confirmed by letters patent.) ==Letters patent== More often, letters patent are used to create peerages. Letters patent must explicitly name the recipient of the title and specify the course of descent; the exact meaning of the term is determined by common law. Normally, the patent specifies the peer's ''heirs-male of the body'' as successors; in such a case, the rules of agnatic succession apply, meaning that succession is through the male line only. Some very old titles, like the Baron Arlington, may pass to ''heirs of the body'' (not just heirs-male), these follow the same rules of descent as do baronies by writ, and seem able to fall into abeyance as well. Many Scottish titles allow for passage to ''heirs-general of the body'', in which case the rules of male primogeniture apply; they do not fall into abeyance, as under Scots law, sisters are not treated as equal co-heirs. English and British letters patent that do not specify a course of descent are invalid, though the same is not true for the letters patent creating peers in the Peerage of Scotland. The House of Lords has ruled in certain cases that when the course of descent is not specified, or when the letters patent are lost, the title descends to heirs-male. It is possible for some patents to allow for succession by someone other than an heir-male. Several instances may be cited: the Earl Nelson (to an elder brother and his heirs-male), the Earl Roberts (to a daughter and her heirs-male), the Earl Amherst (to a nephew and his heirs-male) and the Duke of Dover (to a younger son and his heirs-male while the eldest son is still alive). In many cases, the peer in question had no sons, and the special grant was made to preclude an extinction of the peerage. But in all cases the course of descent specified in the patent must be known in common law. For instance, the Crown may not make a "shifting limitation" in the letters patent; in other words, the patent may not vest the peerage in an individual and then, based on the occurrence of some event other than death (such as succession to a higher title) shift the title to another person. The doctrine was established in the ''Buckhurst Peerage Case'' (1876), in which the House of Lords deemed invalid letters patent aimed to keep the Barony of Buckhurst separate from the Earldom of De La Warr. The patent stipulated that, if the holder of the barony ever inherited the earldom, then he would be deprived of the barony, which would instead pass to the next successor as if the deprived holder died without issue. Also, it is necessary for English patents to include limitation "of the body", as in "heirs-male of the body". The limitation indicates that only lineal descendants of the original peer may succeed to the peerage. In some very rare instances, the limitation was left out. In the ''Devon Peerage Case'' of 1831, the House of Lords permitted an heir who was a collateral descendant of the original peer to take his seat. The precedent, however, was reversed in 1859, when the House of Lords decided in the ''Wiltes Peerage Case'' that a patent that did not include the words "of the body" would be held void. Letters patent are not absolute; they may be amended or revoked by Act of Parliament. For example, Parliament amended the letters patent creating the Duke of Marlborough in 1706. The patent originally provided that the dukedom could be inherited by the heirs-male of the body of the first duke, Captain-General Sir John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. One son had died in infancy and the other died in 1703 from smallpox. Under Parliament's amendment to the patent, designed to allow the famous general's honour to survive after his death, the dukedom was allowed to pass to the Duke's daughters, the Harriet Godolphin, Countess of Godolphin, the Anne Churchill, Countess of Sunderland, the Elizabeth Churchill, Countess of Bridgewater and the Mary Churchill, Duchess of Montagu, and their heirs-male, and thereafter "to all and every other the issue male and female, lineally descending of or from the said Duke of Marlborough, in such manner and for such estate as the same are before limited to the before-mentioned issue of the said Duke, it being intended that the said honours shall continue, remain, and be invested in all the issue of the said Duke, so long as any such issue male or female shall continue, and be held by them severally and successively in manner and form aforesaid, the elder and the descendants of every elder issue to be preferred before the younger of such issue." ==The number of hereditary peers== The Peerage used to be an extremely small and exclusive institution. When Henry VII of England called his first Parliament in the fifteenth century, there were only twenty-nine peers. The Tudor rulers made very few creations of peerages; at the death of Queen Elizabeth, there were just fifty-nine peers in the realm. {| border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse; margin:1em; float: right;" |+ Creation of English peerage
dignities by Stuart monarchs |- bgcolor="#dddddd" align="center" ! Sovereign !! Reign !! Peers |- | James I || 1603–1625 || align="right" | 62 |- | Charles I || 1625–1649 || align="right" | 59 |- | Charles II || 1660–1685 || align="right" | 64 |- | James II || 1685–1689 || align="right" | 8 |- | William III & Mary II || 1689–1702 || align="right" | 30 |- | Anne || 1702–1714 || align="right" | 30 |- style="font-weight: bold;" | Total || 1603–1714 || align="right" | 253 |} Thereafter, however, the Peerage experienced a dramatic swelling due to the generosity of the Stuart monarchs. By the time of Queen Anne of Great Britain's death, there were no fewer than one hundred and sixty-eight peers. At one point, in order to obtain a majority in the House of Lords in her favour, Queen Anne created twelve peers in one day—more than Elizabeth I had created during an entire reign that had lasted for more than half of a century. Several peers were alarmed at the rapid increase in the size of the Peerage, fearing that their individual importance and power would decrease as the number of Peers increased. Therefore, in 1719, a bill was introduced in the House of Lords to place a limitation on the Crown's power. It sought to permit no more than six new creations, and thereafter one new creation for each other title that became extinct. It did allow, however, the Crown to bestow titles on members of the Royal Family without any such limitation. The Bill was rejected in its final stage in the Lords, but it was passed when it was re-introduced in the next year. Nonetheless, the House of Commons rejected the bill 269 to 177. George III of the United Kingdom was especially profuse with the creation of titles, mainly due to the desire of some of his Prime Ministers to obtain a majority in the House of Lords. During his twelve years in power, Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford had about thirty new peerages created. During William Pitt the Younger's seventeen-year tenure, over one hundred and forty new peerages had been awarded. {| border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse; margin:1em; float: right;" |+ Hereditary Peers in 1999 |- bgcolor="#dddddd" align="center" ! Type !! Male !! Female !! Total |- | Prince || align="right" | 1 || align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 1 |- | Duke || align="right" | 28 || align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 28 |- | Marquess || align="right" | 34 || align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 34 |- | Earl || align="right" | 170 || align="right" | 5 || align="right" | 175 |- | Viscount || align="right" | 102 || align="right" | 0 || align="right" | 102 |- | Baron/Lord || align="right" | 407 || align="right" | 12 || align="right" | 419 |- style="font-weight: bold;" | Total || align="right" | 742 || align="right" | 17 || align="right" | 759 |} In 1801, Parliament did impose a restriction on the creation of peerages, but only in the Peerage of Ireland. Under the 1801 Act of Union combining Ireland and Great Britain into the United Kingdom, until the number of Irish peers (excluding those who also hold British or English peerages) was reduced to one-hundred, the Sovereign could not create a new Irish peerage until ''three'' previous titles became extinct. After the number of Irish peers reached one hundred, the Sovereign could create new titles as often as may have been necessary to maintain that number. Still, there remained no restrictions on creations in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Thus, the Peerage continued to swell through the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, there were even more creations since Prime Ministers were eager to secure majorities in the House of Lords. Peerages were handed out not to honour the recipient but to give him a seat in the House of Lords. However, with the accession of the The Labour Party (UK) government of Harold Wilson in 1964, the practice of granting hereditary peerages effectively stopped. Since 1964, only five hereditary peerages have been granted—two (the Prince Andrew, Duke of York and the Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex) for members of the royal family, and three additional creations (the William Whitelaw, 1st Viscount Whitelaw, the George Thomas, 1st Viscount Tonypandy and the Earl of Stockton) under Margaret Thatcher government in the mid-1980s. The two Viscounts were childless, and their titles are now extinct; and Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton received the Earldom often awarded to retiring Prime Ministers from the House of Commons. ==References== *[http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/ Blackstone, W. (1765). ''Commentaries on the Laws of England''. Oxford: Clarendon Press.] *[http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Peerage_Law.htm Cox, N. (1997). "The British Peerage: The Legal Standing of the Peerage and Baronetage in the overseas realms of the Crown with particular reference to New Zealand." New Zealand Universities Law Review. (Vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 379–401).] *[http://home.freeuk.com/don-aitken/emayvols.html Farnborough, T. E. May, 1st Baron. (1896). Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George the Third, 11th ed. London: Longmans, Green and Co.] *[http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/106i/106i01.htm HL 106-I. (1998–1999).] *[http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/19990034.htm House of Lords Act 1999. (c. 34). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.] *[http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990511/text/90511-19.htm House of Lords Debates (1998–1999). Vol. 600, col. 1156.] *[http://www.hereditarypeers.com/compensation.htm McCallion, P. (2003). Letter to The Earl Alexander of Tunis.] *"Peerage." (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed. London: Cambridge University Press. *[http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/peer63.htm Peerage Act 1963. (1963 c. 48). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.] *[http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/titledep.htm Titles Deprivation Act 1917. (7 & 8 George 5 c 47). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.] Peerage
Hereditary peer
==Featured Article candidacy comments (promoted)== ===Hereditary peer=== ''(Uncontested -- July 7)'' Self-nomination. -- User:Lord Emsworth *Support User:172 05:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) *Support. I like several of the other peerage-related articles too. User:81.168.80.170 19:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) *Support - seems rather complete and should do fine alongside the already FA peerage article (other articles in the series also look like they might be featurable). --User:Maveric149 06:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) *Support this Emsworth work, too. User:Jdforrester User_talk:Jdforrester ==Prince?== With Reference to Prince as Degree within the British Peerage "It is also possible to suggest that a principality is a peerage dignity." Whereas it possible to suggest,it is is quite wrong. There are five degrees of the British peerage, no more, no less. Of course I understand the source of confusion as the House of Lords Act 1999 states that "In this Act "hereditary peerage" includes the principality of Wales and the earldom of Chester." But note that whilst that may be the case for "this Act" it is not otherwise the case. To explain further. If you examine the Explanatory Notes produced in conjunction with the original House Of Lords Bill and in particular the Commentary on Clauses, you will see that it includes the following text. (See http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmbills/034/en/99034x--.htm) Clause 1: Exclusion of hereditary peers 5. The main provision of the Bill ends membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.... 6. The exclusion from membership applies to all those who are members of the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage, including - members of the Royal Family who have the right to sit and vote in the House (the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of York, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent); Here the authors of the bill are expressing their intentions as regards the legislation they wish enacted. Specifically they wish to ensure that no member of the Royal Family is a member of the House of Lords and since the only member of the royal family not known under a peerage dignity is the Prince of Wales it is felt necessary to include the Principality of Wales within the definition of an hereditary peerage for the purposes of the Act. This is simply a typical belt and braces approach to legislation. The authors wished to ensure that no Prince of Wales later emerged and claimed that he was enitled to a seat in the House of Lords on the basis that he was not named in the act. The whole point is this. The House of Lords Act 1999 does not support the contention that Prince is a degree within the British Peerage but quite the reverse, as if that where the case it would not have been neccessary to the specific clause that re-defined what constituted an herditary peerage. I hope that is clear. Unfortunately it is neccessary to stamp on this sort of amateurish nonsense as otherwise it percolates all over the internet and generates its own validity through constant repetition. ProfSmith :As for the House of Lords Act 1999, I don't think it has any bearing on the issue. If the Principality of Wales were indeed a peerage dignity, the Act would have to be so worded to ensure that it is not treated as a life peerage dignity. :It appears that even the editors of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica seem to have got this wrong, then: "Until recent years the title prince was never conferred on anybody except the heir-apparent to the Crown, and his principality is a peerage." It was on the basis of this remark—not on the basis of confusion caused by the House of Lords Act—that the reference to the Principality of Wales had been added. -- User:Lord Emsworth 14:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::ISTM that this paragraph should be clarified, at least, to indicate that although some authorities consider the Principality of Wales to be a peerage (and the point is moot, since I don't believe anyone has been granted this title in modern times who was not already a Duke), other members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the title "Prince" are not considered hereditary peers by virtue of that title. User:RussBlau 17:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
H
HA | HB | HC | HD | HE | HF | HG | HI | HJ | HK | HL | HM | HN | HO | HP | HR | HS | HT | HU | HW | HX | HY | HZ |Words begining with Hereditary_peer:
Hereditary_Peer
Hereditary_peer
Hereditary_peer
Hereditary_peer.ogg
Hereditary_peers
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
