I’m in an argument with someone, and I’m pretty sure I’m right, but I can’t find a legitimate source to back me up.
My disputant believes that the Sovereign controls peerages in the UK. I know the Sovereign can grant peerages (including hereditary ones). I’ve also seen it widely quoted online that only Parliament can revoke peerages.
What I haven’t seen is anything that says that the Sovereign can (or cannot) change the method of inheritance for a specific peerage. For example, my disputant believes that King Charles can step in and prevent Prince Archie from inheriting the title of Duke of Sussex after Prince Harry’s passing. I’m fairly confident that she is wrong and that only Parliament can do this, but I haven’t found anything specifically stating this.
Does anyone have any information on this – preferably with a source or citation to back it up?
You need to distinguish between a Life Peer and a Hereditary Peer. Whilst the monarch ‘officially’ creates both, in reality, the Prime Minister creates Life Peers (who sit as legislators in the House of Lords). The Monarch does still create hereditary peers, but these days they are members of the Royal Family rather than us oiks.
The monarch can’t change the line of succession or remove a peerage. That can only be done by Act of Parliament. More information can be found here, on the Parliament website.
The above doesn’t talk directly about changing the line of succession, but it does say that a peerage is granted by Letters Patent, and once that has happened, only an Act of Parliament can change things.
With any discussion about royal power, the answer 9 times out of 10 is ‘The King can’t but Parliament can’. We had a war over it.
And honestly, WHY would Charles want to do that? It’s his grandson.
What does a hereditary peerage get somebody? Is it just wealth and a title? Where does the wealth come from? Can someone outside the UK get one? Asking for a friend.
The historically most significant example is the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 during WW1, which stripped a range of German aristocrats of the British titles that they also held. This example goes to show that it takes, indeed, an Act of Parliament to revoke a peerage, and the same goes for modifying it. The reason for this is that the peerage, once created, is a vested right, and that right cannot be altered or taken away except by Parliament (which can do anything it wants to do and is not subject to legal restrictions).
I am aware of the difference between a life peerage and a hereditary peerage. My question only concerns hereditary peerages (since life peerages cannot be inherited).
I sent my disputant a link to that very page that you sent me. I haven’t heard back from her yet on it. In the meantime, I was hoping for an actual citation of law that I could use.
And, yes, I know that neither Charles or William would purposely exclude Prince Archie from the title without good reason, even if they were able.
Even the TDA didn’t really remove the titles, but merely suspended them, IIRC. But it doesn’t address modifying the method of inheritance, which is the point of our discussion.
Your latter point, however (that it’s a vested right) is well-taken. Do you know of a source/citation that I could use to back that up?
And that link doesn’t satisfy you? Looks like you need to quote " As explained in Halsbury’s Laws of England*,* the Crown does not have the power to cancel a peerage once it has been created."
There aren’t any new ones being created (other than those within the royal family), and if there were, they would only confer a fancy title. Any wealth attached to an existing title is inherited just as with anyone else’s estate.
So people overseas would only get one by inheritance, assuming their own country doesn’t have rules against it.
I believe this came up after absolute primogeniture became to rule for royal succession. In fact I think I asked the question if the monarch could as part of the Royal Prerogative do the same for peerage inheritance. And the answers came back pretty much no, an Act of Parliament is needed OR a more complicated way, the Peerage is reissued with new Royal Warrants but after Parliament takes away their peerages.
There is a bill pending in the House of Lords that would abolish gender preferences in all hereditary peerages and baronetcies that have them. It’s at least a data point to suggest that this kind of modification takes an Act of Parliament.
But worth adding that the sovereign can, and occasionally does, grant a peerage with non-standard succession rules from the outset — i.e. the letters patent which create the peerage specify some abnormal succession rules.
When Louis Mountbatten was made an earl in 1947, he had no son and seemed unlikely at that point to beget one. The peerage was granted on terms that it would pass to his eldest daughter and then to her male heirs and, if that line of succession failed, then to the first earl’s next daughter and her male heirs, and so forth. Mountbatted died in 1979 and his eldest daughter duly became Countess Mountbatten of Burma. The title is now held by her son, Norton Knatchbull.
And Prince Edward is Duke of Edinburgh, following the wishes of Prince Philip, but it is not a hereditary title, based on the terms of the patent granted by King Charles. On Edward’s death the Dukedom will revert to the Crown, not to his son James, who will be Earl of Wessex.
Nitpick. I don’t think the title will “revert to the Crown” on Edward’s death; it will simply become extinct, like any other life peerage or any hereditary peerage where there is a failure of heirs.
When Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, died, his title (which was heritable in the usual way) passed to his eldest son Charles who, however, was already Prince of Wales, and so didn’t make much use of the “Duke of Edinburgh” title. When Charles became king, the title of Duke of Edinbugh reverted to the Crown (along will all other titles that Charles had).
A title reverts to the crown when (a) the present holder dies and his heir is the monarch, or (b) the present holder of the title becomes the monarch. The first of these things will not happen in Edward’s case, and an awful lot of people would have to die before their time for the second to
happen.
I recall something about the aftermath of the rebellion of 1745, where it was mentioned that some Scots lords had their estates confiscated and lost their titles - but also it was mentioned these titles were returned a decade or two later. I assumed this was because even the king or government don’t just kick people out of the nobility. Just not done.
Perhaps you’re thinking of the earldom of Mar.. It was granted, revoked in 1565 because of the holder’s involvement in a rebellion, and then transferred to someone else who was also a descendant of the original grantee. Then there was a dispute as to whether that new grant was a transfer of the existing title or the creation of a new one. In the 19th century, the House of Lords ruled one way, an Act of Parliament the other. As a result, is currently generally recognised to exist twice.
