Since being the heir apparent to a title doesn’t make you a peer can the heir of say an earl be an mp in the house of commons?
If so let’s say for example, Mathew Crawly is a Manchester solicitor who decides to run for parliament and wins a seat. Then he finds out that due to the death of his cousin he’s next in line to be the earl of Grantham. He stays in parliament and becomes the prime minister. The current earl dies and he inherits the title. Does he have to give up parliament now? What if he marries the young princess Elizabeth and becomes a duke and the father of the Prince of Wales?
Being an heir does not make you a lord. There is the well-known case of Anthony Wedgewood Benn, the heir to the Viscount Stansgate, who was an MP from 1950 to 1960, then lost his seat when his father died and he became the viscount. In 1963, about 20 minutes after the passage of the Peerage Act, he disclaimed the title and stood again as an MP.
So:
(1) before you inherit a title, you can be an MP – and always have been able to.
(2) since 1963, you can disclaim a title and continue to be an MP.
Historical example: Sir Alec Douglas-Home was originally in the House of Commons until he inherited the Lordship and became Earl of Home. At that point, he moved to the House of Lords. When he was tapped to be prime minister in 1963, he renounced the earldom and was elected to Commons.
So the answer seems to be that if he accepts the title, he must move to the House of Lords. If he wants to remain in the House of Commons, he must renounce it.
Inheriting a peerage no longer means that you get an automatic seat in the House of Lords. You must then get elected by some of the other hereditary peers for one of the limited number of seats reserved for hereditary peers. (OK, the Duke of Norfolk as the Earl Marshal and the Marquess of Cholmondeley as Lord Great Chamberlain are exceptions, but the general point still stands.) So long as the MP with the life peerage does not get elected for such a seat, they can continue sitting in the Commons. Viscount Thurso has sat in the Commons after sitting in the Lords without renouncing his peerage.
A life peerage still automatically elevates a sitting MP to the Lords. But if they don’t want to leave the Commons, they just don’t accept the peerage.
As of 1999 this is all no longer correct. Those who are appointed to the House of Lords or are one of the 92 elected peers are indeed ineligible, but having a title is in itself no longer a bar to sitting in the Commons.
With regards to royalty, the Civil War asserted the dominance of Parliament (formalised in 1688) and they have held themselves separate from Parliament.
the non-House of Lords hereditary peers can now stand for the Commons, like anyone else
Some Life Peers have recently chosen to resign or retire from the Lords. I don’t know what the implications of that is. Perhaps they can stand in the Commons?
** There’s actually more than 92 hereditary peers in the Lords, as a few have been awarded Life Peerages so that they can sit on that basis.
Is it a requirement that peers renounce their peerage to become Prime Minister? It didn’t use to be, and several Lords were P.M.s in the 19th century and as recently as 1902:
(The way this is phrased — “last … full administration” — it sounds like there was a later P.M. from the Lords, but I don’t know who.)
When Germany invaded France in 1940, Neville Chamberlain resigned and hoped to be succeeded by Edward Wood, then Viscount Halifax. Halifax argued that it would be difficult to serve as a wartime P.M. without sitting in Commons and deferred to Winston Churchill.
No, in theory the Prime Minister is whoever can convince the Monarch that they can command a majority in the House of Commons, potentially not even a member of either House. But in reality it can nowadays only be an MP, I suspect.
Alexander Douglas-Home was Prime Minister and Earl of Home between 19th and 23rd October 1963. He then gave up his title and was elected as an MP, to continue as PM. (He was the second person to use the Peerage Act 1963 to give up a peerage, Tony Benn being the first.)
No, if someone disclaims a peerage the title basically goes into abeyance during their lifetime, but once they die their heir (even if born after the title was disclaimed) can inherit it was normal.
He’s got a lot to recommend him though. He’s a war vet, good education, Knights Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, comes from a good family, does lots of charity work.
The reason is that (prior to 1999) all English, Scottish and British peers were entitled as of right to sit in the House of Lords. However Irish peers were not.
And the reason for that is that, around the time of the Act of Union 1800 by which Ireland was admitted to the UK, the British government created vast numbers of new Irish peerages, as bribes and blandishments to secure the passage of the Act of Union. If all Irish peers had then been admitted to the UK parliament, that would have been a huge influx, and furthermore an influx of people chosen precisely because of their readiness to accept bribes. Which, even by the standards of the early nineteenth century, they could see was perhaps not the best basis for selecting men to govern the country.
So the upshot was that 28 Irish representative peers got to sit in the House of Lords. The other Irish peers, not having a seat in the Lords, were not debarred from election to the Commons. Lord Palmerston, one of the dominant British political figures in the mid-19th century and twice Prime Minister, sat in the Commons throughout his political career; although he himself was English and barely visited Ireland, never mind living there, he held an Irish peerage.
Elections of representative Irish peers ceased with the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922. However those who were serving as representative peers at that time continued to do so; the last of them did not die until 1961.
Adequate qualifications for lending a bit of glitz to good causes say nothing about one’s ability to manage a political party, a majority in the House of Commons, or a government whose senior members may well have a long-term or not so long-term eye on taking over your job.
Of course, if you think they’re sufficient for a combined head of state/head of government, that’s your problem…
