I think it’s more useful to think of it the other way round. Statute defines who is not eligible to sit in the Commons. Commoner is just the default state really, and doesn’t need codifying explicitly.
Neither of those examples has anything to do with the UK. “Commoner,” in British law, is a specific legal status. In other countries, it may well have a different legal definition. I know next to nothing about imperial Russian or Prussian law, so I am confining my part of this discussion to one particular royal family.
Under British law, if the subject in question is not eligible to sit in the Commons, they cannot take their seat. You can’t be “demoted” by the act of taking the seat, because the act will never take place.
For example, in 1961 Tony Benn won nearly 70% of the votes cast for a seat in the House of Commons. Benn, however, had recently inherited a peerage, and was therefore no longer a commoner eligible for election, so the candidate who received fewer votes was declared the winner and took up the seat. (The Peerage Act 1963 was then passed to allow a peer to disclaim a title under certain time constraints, so Benn eventually returned to the Commons.)
Perhaps first we need you to define how you are using the term “commoner.”
In British law, it historically meant “able to vote for and serve in the House of Commons,” and yes, there are laws (some linked already in this thread) that define who is or is not eligible. However, you seem to be using some definition other than the British legal definition.
To expand on my own point, there are other definitions of “commoner” in British law.
For example, The New Forest (Confirmation of the Byelaws of the Verderers of the New Forest) Order 2003 defined the word as meaning “a person owning animals entitled to be in the Forest.” By that definition, I’m pretty sure none of the nephews of the monarch are currently “commoners”; neither are ninety-nine-plus percent of the residents of England. That’s not what most people mean by “commoners,” so what do YOU mean?
Yes, but with provision for possible dual peer-commoner status, and as I indicated before conferral of such status on a peer might not take place until the peer actually took part in the election process. (I used the example of physically being seated in Parliament, but it could be much earlier)
You’re just making stuff up, right?
No, I do not agree that the same rules that apply to Billie or Graham necessarily apply to royalty.
Nor am I yet ready to strike Prince Michael from the list of royals, although a line based on kinship distance from the sovereign must be drawn somewhere.
All the hereditary peers of the realm who are not also members of the House of Lords could nowadays be described as being peer-commoners, I think. One of them, John Thurso, who is a Viscount, sits in the Commons.
No-one, apart from staunch republicans, would! He’s still not a peer.
Dual peer-commoner status is inference. The exact point of transition to this status is speculation.
Go back and define your terms. What does “peer” mean? What does “commoner” mean?
In days of yore, being a peer conferred certain privileges: you had the right to demand an audience with the monarch, you had the right to trial by a jury of the House of Lords, you could not be sent to debtor’s prison, and so forth. Through the centuries, most of the “privilege of peerage” has been whittled away, and the House of Lords Act 1999 pretty much put paid to the rest.
Prior to the passage of that act, a joint committee investigated the privileges belonging to members of parliament; see the section their report discussing privilege of peerage (para. 329).
Note the line that “`Privilege of peerage’ belongs to all peers, whether or not they are members of the House of Lords, and also to the wives of peers and widows of peers provided they do not marry commoners.” Children of peers, e.g., did not enjoy the privilege of peerage: they had no special legal status. Children of the monarch who were not themselves peers likewise are not included in the list of those with such privilege: they had no special legal status either.
There is nothing in British law that gives any special rights to the children of the monarch who are not themselves peers. I can’t prove a negative, but I will point you to “The official home of UK legislation, 1267 to present.” Can you point to anything in there that gives extra benefits or protections or status to any member of the royal family specifically because they are royal, other than the monarch or the monarch’s eldest son (who automatically holds the peerage titles of Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester)?
He did enjoy, and continues to enjoy, an official status above, say, the child of ordinary non-titled parents. He is a male-line grandchild of King George V and so is a prince of the United Kingdom with the style “His Royal Highness,” and his royal status means that he takes precedence over the most senior non-royal peer of the realm, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
But commoner does not mean a person with no official status above anybody else, so proving that Prince Michael enjoys such a status does not mean much. The closest term for that would have been “gentleman.” (Even that conveyed a certain degree of social status, but you probably had to have some to be dealing with the types of people who cared about precedence in the first place.)
The British law on peerage (and therefore on commoner status) has never been codified. It’s largely the result of the exercise of the royal prerogative, not of legislation.
The easiest way to think of it is this; commoner is the default status. If you’re not the sovereign, and not a peer, you’re a commoner. Thus you rarely or never need either either legislation, or an explicit exercise of the prerogative, to make someone a commoner; rather, you need one or the other to make someone not a commoner. You can easily show that Prince William of Wales is (now) not a commoner by pointing to the documentation which make him Duke of Cambridge. But there is no parallel documentation establishing that his brother Harry is a commoner; there is just an absence of any documentation conferring a peerage title on him.
What **UDS **said. You are in the peerage because you are entered into it under whatever document created a title of peerage, it’s not the default for being born of one noble parent. ( Anecdotal observation may lead you to a “reasonable inference”… but why should *your inference *be presumed right and require hard legal proof to the contrary?)
Furthermore, the comment in the thread four years ago was about a legal technicality of the British system. As pointed out already, of course the untitled princes have a special standing. Nobody’s saying they are lowly villeins; just that under that legal technicality as they were themselves not capital-P Peers, they become part of the Commons’ constituency. “Prince” or “princess” in the UK usage is just a reference to who’s your Daddy, not itself a peerage (maybe except for Wales?).
As Nava pointed out in the case of hidalgos, nontitled children/grandchildren of nobles would traditionally have a very real *class *status distinct from mere villeins. They’d be in a privileged, entitled class, and I would second Lord Feldon in that the close equivalent is what used to be referred to in the archaic usage of “Gentlemen” as in “for he that sheds his blood today with me shall be my brother, be he ne’er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition…and gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed…” ; it was a higher class condition of whom better was expected. This may be no longer so much of a big deal for the children of your average marquis or viscount, but for “royals” it still has a lot of weight.