Can someone explain to me the differences between hereditary and life peerages in the UK?
I know the obvious: that hereditary titles can be passed on to peers’ heirs, but I’m under the impression that life peers have more power in the House of Lords these days. Are there any other differences?
And, while we’re on the subject, when was the last time a life peerage was bestowed? (Is that the proper term? “Granted”?) Am I right in believing that hereditary peerages are given out much less frequently than life titles?
Prior to about 1880 the only peerages (other than the seats reserved for Church of England Bishops) were hereditary. At that point, they allowed the “Lords of Appeal in Ordinary,” who constitute the judges when the House of Lords sits as the court of last resort, to be appointed for life.
In about 1958, they passed a law allowing peers to resign their titles (which had been illegal before that date) and for the crown to appoint life peers. The Earl of Home became Sir Alec Douglas-Home in 1963 in order to become Prime Minister (which it’s generally felt requires having a seat in the Commons).
Over the next 30 years or so, only life peers were appointed. With the advent of Maggie Thatcher as P.M., a few hereditary peerages were again given out. But you’re correct in your perception that they’re much rarer (allowing a 50-year range as “recent history”) than the life ones.
What’s happening now should be posted by a Brit, but I gather that the idea is to eliminate all hereditary peerages from the House of Lords (though the peers would presumably be entitled to retain their titles, which with 50p will get them a cup of tea).
Hereditary peers used all have the right to sit and vote in the Lords, but the number who can do so has now been limited. The hereditary peers themselves vote to select which of them will take seats in the Lords. All life peers can sit and vote.
Life peerages are created all the time - several are created every year. Hereditary peerages more or less stopped being created in the early 1960s, apart from a brief period in Margaret Thatcher’s later, odder years when she handed out hereditary peerages to a couple of ex-politicians of her own party. (In fairness to her, much as I dislike being fair to her, she might have offered hereditary peerages to ex-politicians of other parties, and they might have turned them down.)
Since Margaret Thatcher stood down there have been no further hereditary peerages created.
IIRC, Thatcher revived the “splendid British institution” of the hereditary peerage, but was careful to grant them only to people (like the late William Whitelaw) with no valid heirs to the title… thus making the “hereditary” aspect rather moot.
Hereditary peers are quite definitely on their way out… either because a) the hereditary principle is an absurd anachronism in these democratic days, or b) they almost always vote with the Conservative peers, and the Labour party is tired of its opponents having a guaranteed majority in the Upper House. Take your pick.
Those hereditary peers who are still allowed to sit in the House of Lords have exactly the same powers and privileges as the life peers. Life peers do tend to be or have been more substantial public figures and this sometimes, but not always, gives their views more weight. Of course, the crucial difference between the two types of peerage is now that an hereditary peerage does not necessarily entitle the holder to sit in the Lords. There is now a fixed number of seats for the hereditary peers which are chosen by the hereditary peers generally. (It’s actually more complicated than that, but we can ignore the more technical details.)
New life peerages are bestowed all the time (particularly under the present government), so, without bothering to check, I would say that the latest was probably some time earlier this year, probably following an announcement in the New Years Honours list. Hereditary peerages are now very rare but not entirely unknown. The last non-royal creation was the Earl of Stockton (Harold Macmillan) in 1984. (This was not entirely Thatcher’s doing, for, although she had indeed already granted a couple of hereditary peerages, Macmillan claimed his as a former PM, allegedly doing so in order to give him a public platform from which to criticise Thatcher.)
The formal term is ‘created’ but bestowed or granted can be used interchangably.
Actually, Macmillan did have an heir who subsequently inherited the earldom, although, as I’ve already said, that particularly creation was not entirely Thatcher’s doing. Of course, when Thatcher herself retired from the Commons, she was modest enough not to ask for the equivalent…
Hereditary titles are still created within the Royal family. Prince Andrew was created Duke of York on his marriage and, so far as I know, this title would pass to his son if he has one (which at this stage seems unlikely). Prince Edward was created Earl of Wessex on his marriage, and the limitation on Prince Philip’s title was altered so that, on Prince Philip’s death, the title of Duke of Edinburgh will pass to Prince Edward. Prince Edward’s titles will pass on his death to any sons he may have.
Are their titles all that distinguish peers from the hoi polloi in the UK these days? Legally speaking, what are the differences between peers and non-peers?
I now know that life peers get to vote in the House of Lords and, for now, hereditary peers get to vote for a hereditary peer to represent them in the House of Lords. Commoners don’t get to do either.
On the other hand, can peers be elected to the House of Commons?
Are there any other differences? I seem to remember that in the past the rules for jury trials were different for peers and commoners–has that been changed?
Peers could only be tried by, guess what, a jury of their peers. That could be the entire House of Lords, or a large committee of them, sitting in the Court of the Lord High Steward. The last time the latter occurred was a trial presided over by Judge Jeffreys. (The peer in question was acquitted.)
For a good fictional treatment, read Clouds of Witnesses by Dorothy L. Sayers.
I believe the privilege was abolished by Parliament in the 1930s.
Also, peers can neither hold nor vote for membership in the House of Commons.
In addition to the hereditary peers elected to represent all the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, the Duke of Norfolk and the Marquess of Cholmondeley are members due to holding the the offices of Earl Marshall and Great Lord Chamberlain, respectively. There are 583 life peers, 90 hereditary peers, and 26 COE bishops in the House of Lords.
Uh, yeah, I meant “members of the House of Lords”, rather than “peers”. Somehow, in the middle of a thread about which peers are or are not members of the House of Lords, I conflated the two groups.