Before 1911, the House of Lords could and did block legislation passed in the Commons which the peerage felt was detrimental to their interests.
The deadlock was only overcome when the King was persuaded to agree to name large numbers of new peers who would have then diluted the Lords’ power sufficiently to neuter them. The vision of a flood of unworthies persuaded enough existing Lords to back down and pass a key budget bill, and their loss of power was codified in the Parliament Act of 1911.
What with all the celebs and other commoners who’ve gotten royal titles in recent years, the hereditary peers seem to have lost a lot of exclusivity.
The hereditary peerage is more exclusive than ever, since new hereditary peerages are not created, other than for members of the royal family. Admission to the club is effectively impossible and, as existing peerages become extinct through failure of heirs, the club slowly gets smaller and smaller. But membership of the club, though more exclusive, is of less value, since it no longer carries an automatic seat in Parliament.
Must have run in the family. IIRC, the Dukes of Marlborough (from which Churchill’s paternal line descended) was known for being relatively impoverished as far as peers of the realm go.
There’s a room in the ornate Blenheim Palace with a blank ceiling, contrary to the trend of the times. Story has it the Duchess was a penny-pincher and got in an argument with the painter, and then never did get around to having it painted…Once the Palace was complete, probably had better uses for their money.
( Green Writing Room at Blenheim Palace : 360° panorama ?)
Who are all these celebs and other commoners who got royal titles in recent years? The only ones that spring to mind are Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle (though the latter doesn’t use her royal title any more). Have there been others?
WAG, here, but Churchill was a historian; he might have looked back at William Pitt the Elder, who dominated the House of Commons. But when he bowed to demand and returned to politics in the midst of the American Revolution/Seven Years War, he accepted the title Earl of Chatham, only to realize that he was far less influential as a member of the House of Lords.
While the Duke of Lancaster has only a paltry half-billion in his personal fortune, he holds in trust a lot of Crown estates and other properties, to some of which he has near-exclusive access. (His jewellery collection alone is worth around £4 billion.) If included, these push that figure up comfortably past the Duke of Westminster’s.
That’s the usual discussion of how wealthy the British monarch personally is. I think the prevailing view in this discussion is that unmarketable property held in trust for the Crown should not be included.
Not least because something like 75% of the income goes to the Treasury for general government expenditure and 25% to pay for what the government would otherwise have spent on the “Head of State” function (office staff, transport, ceremonial bling, receptions/dinners/events, and so on). We could argue indefinitely about how extravagant that expenditure needs to be, but it can hardly be treated as personal wealth.
The ambiguous term here is “royal title”, which is not a defined term. If it’s just meant to refer to a title awarded by the British monarch, then there are, of course, lots of people every year who get one. If it’s meant to refer to people who are members of the royal family and get a title from the monarch, then, by definition, nobody outside the royal family gets one. I suppose what is meant here by “royal title” is a hereditary peerage, and the last time one of those was awarded to someone outside the royal family was in 1984 (although there is no legal reason why this should not be possible to occur again).
It’s also worth mentioning that neither Kate nor Meghan have received a title in their own right. Both of them have only courtesy titles, i.e., they use their respective husband’s title in the feminine form, but legally the holder of the title is the husband.
As a compositional compound, I don’t see that term as needing a definition of its own. Surely it refers to titles given to members of the royal family, and stands in contrast to noble titles, which are given to members of the nobility.
Is the term ever used this way by the people most closely connected with the titles themselves (i.e., those awarding or holding them, or responsible for the associated bureaucracy)? If a “royal title” can be a title awarded by royalty, rather than to royalty, then we might reasonably expect a “noble title” to be a title awarded by nobility.
The starting point of this sub-discussion was a post that mentioned “all the celebs and other commoners who’ve gotten royal titles in recent years”. It’s obvious that this post could not have used the term “royal title” as meaning “a title awarded to members of the royal family”, so I suppose the intended meaning was “a title awarded by the monarch”. Such titles continue to be awarded in considerable numbers.
