It’s my understanding that PMs and other members of the Commons cannot not be titled nobility, although this does not exclude sons and daughters holding courtesy titles. However, I notice here that many earlier PMs seem to have held titles. At the same time, I thought that more recent PMs are traditionally offered life peerages at the close of their careers; only Churchill refusing the honor because he wanted to continue in politics.
Was there a time when PMs didn’t come from the Commons?
AFAIK, the PM has always come from the House of Commons. Former PMs can take on peerages, but you cannot be a peer and serve as PM.
Back in the 60s, Lord Home renounced his title in order to become PM as Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Note that a knighthood doesn’t disqualify you; only being a lord (Earl, Viscount, Baron, etc.).
Titled nobility may not become members of the House of Commons. However, I believe in the past that the prime minister need not have been a member of the House of Commons. In short, I believe the answer to your question is “yes.” It’s my impression, although I may be wrong, that technically it still might be the case.
To be Prime Minister you must be a member of either the House of Commons or theh House of Lords, but as the Prime Minister has been a member of the Commons (while he/MT was serving as Prime Minister) for circa. the last 100 years for all pratical intents and purposes you must be a member of the HoCs.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth century most but by no means all Prime Ministers were Lords. I beleive the only Lords to serve as Prime Minister in the 20th century was Lord Salibury who left office in 1902 and Lord Home who renounced his title upon gaining the position.
Yes - there was a time when the PM could be from the House of Lords. Prior to the 1911 Parliament Act both Houses of Parliament were equally powerful so there was no historical reason why the PM should sit in one particular House. Often PMs would be based in the Lords - the present day cabinet position of Leader of the House of Commons is a relic of this, the position used to be appointed to be in charge of the Commons when the PM was a Lord.
After 1911 the House of Lords lost its ability to block economic legislation and could only delay other legislation for 2 years, and was hence clearly the sub-ordinate House. However theoretically it was still possible for the PM to be a Lord until 1923. In 1923 the King was faced with deciding whether to invite Stanley Baldwin or Lord Curzon to become PM. At that point it was decided that it was inappropriate for a PM to be a Lord, and since then the convention has been that the PM must be or seek to become a member of the House of Commons (though it is only a convention - there is no law or statute forcing a PM to be in the Commons)
As MC MoC as said, in 1963 Lord Home became Prime Minister, but had to renounce his peerage and stand in a Commons by-election. Presumably, had he been defeated in the by-election another PM would have had to have been appointed.
Note that, since 1999 hereditary peers do not automatically have the right to sit in the House of Lords and hence hereditary peers who haven’t been elected to sit in the House of Lords can stand for election to the House of Lords. Currently there are two hereditary peers sitting in the Commons, Lord Thurso and Lord Hailsham.
By tradition when Prime Ministers left the House of Commons they were granted an Earldom (although Churchill did indeed famously turn down a Dukedom). Since 1963 awards of hereditary peerages have been exceptionally rare, and most PM’s have taken life peerages instead - supposedly a PM could choose to take a Earldom rather than a left peerage, assuming their successor agreed - Harold MacMillan was granted an Earldom in 1985, and while Mrs Thatcher chose to take a life peerage her husband was given a Baronetcy (a hereditary knighthood, indeed the last hereditary title created).
Now hereditary peerages no longer give someone the right to sit in the House of Lords who knows, they may start to be used again.
Of the PM’s to take office since 1900:
Balfour: Became an Earl in the early 1920’s.
Campbell-Bannerman: Died in office.
Asquith: Receieved Earldom in the 1920’s.
Lloyd George: Received Earldom in 1944.
Baldwin: Received Earldom, 1937.
MacDonald: I honestly can’t recall.
Chamberlain: Died without receiving a peerage.
Churchill: Refused Dukedom.
Attlee: Received Earldom in the 1950’s.
Eden: Received Earldom in the early 1960’s.
MacMillan: Recieved Earldom in 1983.
Home: Life peer, early 1970’s.
Wilson: Life peer, 1983.
Heath: Has not yet received peerage.
Callaghan: Life peer, 1987.
Thatcher: Life peer, 1992.
Major: Has not yet received peerage.
Blair: Has no need to want it yet.
Ramsay MacDonald lost his seat in 1935, but was re-elected in a by-election in 1936 and joined the cabinet as President of the Council. When he resigned from the cabinet (in early 1937 I think) the King offered him a peerage, but he declined it. He died the same year.
GQ, the one you missed was Bonar Law, who, like MacDonald and Chamberlain, was still in the Commons when he died.
The last time it was seriously considered that a peer might lead the government from the Lords was in 1940 when Viscount Halifax was a strong contender to succeed Chamberlain. Unlike the Earl of Home twenty-three years later, Halifax would not have been able to disclaim his title. Although this was one reason - perhaps the decisive one - why Churchill was appointed instead, there were many at the time who thought that Halifax could have acted as PM from the Lords and that he ought to have been given the chance to do so.
The situation regarding Lords has recently changed. Those with hereditary titles can now stand for election to the Commons as they can no longer sit in the Lords (excepting the monarch’s family and those peers remaining as members of the Lords). Politicians generally get elevated to the Lords either to get rid of them or on their retirement.
… and speaking of which, a discussion elsewhere has me wondering. Margaret Thatcher is a Life Baroness, and according to Debrett’s (www.debretts.co.uk) her husband aquires no title with her peerage. The late Sir Denis Thatcher, however, was referred to as, well, “Sir”.
The BBC’s obit for him used “Sir”, but didn’t note that he had any sort of peerage in his own right. What gives? Did Lady Thatcher’s PM status affect his title?
Dennis Thatcher has a Baronetage and therefore is styled ‘Sir Dennis Thatcher’.
Life Peers, their wife and children are adressed as if they were a herideraty Baron. The husband of someone who is a life peeress in their own right does not receive any style or title.