Hereditary peer

Thehereditary peersform part of thepeerage in the United Kingdom.As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers:30 dukes(including six royal dukes),34 marquesses,189 earls,110 viscounts,and442 barons(not countingsubsidiary titles).

As a result of thePeerage Act 1963,all peers except those in thepeerage of Irelandwere entitled to sit in theHouse of Lords.Since theHouse of Lords Act 1999came into force only 92 hereditary peers, elected by and from all hereditary peers, are permitted to do so, unless they are also life peers.Peers are called to the House of Lords with awrit of summons.

Not all hereditary titles are titles of the peerage. For instance,baronets and baronetessesmay pass on their titles, but they are not peers. Conversely, the holder of a non-hereditary title may belong to the peerage, as withlife peers.Peerages may be created by means ofletters patent,but the granting of new hereditary peerages has largely dwindled; only seven hereditary peerages have been created since 1965, four of them for members of theBritish royal family.The most recent grant of a hereditary peerage was in 2019 for the youngest child ofElizabeth II,Prince Edward,who was createdEarl of Forfar;the most recent grant of a hereditary peerage to a non-royal was in 1984 for former Prime MinisterHarold Macmillan,who was createdEarl of Stocktonwith the subsidiary title of Viscount Macmillan.

Origins

Further information:History of the British peerage

The hereditary peerage, as it now exists, combines several different English institutions with analogues from Scotland and Ireland.

Englishearlsare anAnglo-Saxoninstitution. Around 1014, England was divided intoshiresor counties, largely to defend against theDanes;each shire was led by a local great man, called an earl; the same man could be earl of several shires. When theNormans invaded England,they continued to appoint earls, but not for all counties; the administrative head of the county became thesheriff.Earldoms began as offices, with a perquisite of a share of the legal fees in the county; they gradually became honours, with a stipend of£20 a year. Like most feudal offices, earldoms were inherited, but the kings frequently asked earls to resign or exchange earldoms. Usually there were few earls in England, and they were men of great wealth in the shire from which they held title, or an adjacent one, but it depended on circumstances: during the civil war betweenStephenand theEmpress Matilda,nine earls were created in three years.

William the Conquerorand his great-grandsonHenry IIdid not make dukes; they were themselves only Dukes of Normandy orAquitaine.But whenEdward III of Englanddeclared himself King of France, he made his sons dukes, to distinguish them from other noblemen, much as royal dukes are now distinguished from other dukes. Later kings createdmarquessesandviscountsto make finer gradations of honour: a rank something more than an earl and something less than an earl, respectively.

WhenHenry IIIorEdward Iwanted money or advice from his subjects, he would order great churchmen, earls, and other great men to come to hisGreat Council(some of these are now considered the firstparliaments); he would generally order lesser men from towns and counties to gather and pick some men to represent them. The English Order ofBaronsevolved from those men who were individually ordered to attend Parliament, but held no other title; the chosen representatives, on the other hand, became theHouse of Commons.This order, called awrit,was not originally hereditary, or even a privilege; the recipient had to come to the Great Council at his own expense, vote on taxes on himself and his neighbours, acknowledge that he was the king'stenant-in-chief(which might cost him special taxes), and risk involvement in royal politics – or a request from the king for a personal loan (benevolence). Which men were ordered to council varied from council to council; a man might be so ordered once and never again, or all his life, but his son and heir might never go.

UnderHenry VI of England,in the 15th century, just before theWars of the Roses,attendance at Parliament became more valuable. The first claim of hereditary right to a writ comes from this reign; so does the firstpatent,or charter declaring a man to be a baron. The five orders began to be called peers. Holders of older peerages also began to receive greater honour than peers of the same rank just created.

If a man held a peerage, his son would succeed to it; if he had no children, his brother would succeed. If he had a single daughter, his son-in-law would inherit the family lands, and usually the same peerage; more complex cases were decided depending on circumstances. Customs changed with time; earldoms were the first to be hereditary, and three different rules can be traced for the case of an earl who left no sons and several married daughters. In the 13th century, the husband of the eldest daughter inherited the earldom automatically; in the 15th century, the earldom reverted to the Crown, who might re-grant it (often to the eldest son-in-law); in the 17th century,it would not be inherited by anybodyunless all but one of the daughters died and left no descendants, in which case the remaining daughter (or her heir) would inherit.

After Henry II became theLord of Ireland,he and his successors began to imitate the English system as it was in their time. Irish earls were first created in the 13th century, and Irish parliaments began later in the same century; until Henry VIII declared himself King of Ireland, these parliaments were small bodies, representing only theIrish Pale.A writ does not create a peerage in Ireland; all Irish peerages are by patent or charter, although some early patents have been lost. After James II left England, he was King of Ireland alone for a time; three creations he ordered then are in the Irish Patent Roll, although the patents were never issued; but these are treated as valid.

The Irish peers were in a peculiar political position: because they were subjects of the King of England, but peers in a different kingdom, they could sit in the English House of Commons, and many did. In the 18th century, Irish peerages became rewards for English politicians, limited only by the concern that they might go to Dublin and interfere with the Irish Government.

Scotland evolved a similar system, differing in points of detail. The first Scottish earldoms derive from the sevenmormaers,of immemorial antiquity; they were named earls by Queen Margaret. TheParliament of Scotlandis as old as the English; the Scottish equivalent of baronies are calledlordships of Parliament.

TheAct of Union 1707,between England and Scotland, provided that future peerages should bepeers of Great Britain,and the rules covering the peers should follow the English model; because there were proportionately many more Scottish peers, they chose a number of representatives to sit in the British House of Lords. TheActs of Union 1800changed this topeers of the United Kingdom,but provided that Irish peerages could still be created; but the Irish peers were concerned that their honours would be diluted as cheap prizes, and insisted that an Irish peerage could be created only when three Irish peerages had gone extinct (until there were only a hundred Irish peers left). In the early 19th century, Irish creations were as frequent as this allowed; but only three have been created since 1863, and none since 1898. As of 2011, only 66 "only-Irish" peers remain.

Modern laws

The law applicable to a British hereditary peerage depends on which Kingdom it belongs to. Peerages of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom follow English law; the difference between them is that peerages of England were created before theAct of Union 1707,peerages of Great Britain between 1707 and the Union with Ireland in 1800, and peerages of the United Kingdom since 1800. Irish peerages follow the law of theKingdom of Ireland,which is very much similar to English law, except in referring to theIrish Parliamentand Irish officials, generally no longer appointed; no Irish peers have been created since 1898, and they have no part in the present governance of the United Kingdom. Scottish peerage law is generally similar to English law, but differs in innumerable points of detail, often being more similar to medieval practice.

Women are ineligible to succeed to the majority of English, Irish, and British hereditary peerages, but may inherit certain English baronies by writ and Scottish peerages in the absence of a male heir.

Ranks and titles

TheHouse of Lords(sitting in its old chamber, burned down in 1834) as drawn byAugustus PuginandThomas RowlandsonforRudolph Ackermann’sMicrocosm of London(1808–1811)

The ranks of the peerage in most of the United Kingdom are, in descending order of rank,duke,marquess,earl,viscountandbaron;the female equivalents are duchess, marchioness, countess, viscountess and baroness respectively. Women typically do not hold hereditary titles in their own right, except for certain peerages in the peerage of Scotland. One significant change to the status quo in England was in 1532 whenHenry VIIIcreated theMarquess of Pembroketitle for his soon-to-be wife,Anne Boleyn;she held this title in her own right and was therefore ennobled with the same rank as a male.

In the Scottish peerage, the lowest rank islordship of Parliament,the male holder thereof being known as alord of Parliament.A Scottishbaronyis afeudalrank, and not of the Peerage. Thebarony by tenureor feudal barony in England and Wales was similar to aScottish feudal barony,in being hereditary, but is long obsolete, the last full summons of the English feudal barons to military service having occurred in 1327.TheTenures Abolition Act 1660finally quashed any remaining doubt as to their continued status.

Peerage dignities are created by thesovereignby either writs of summons orletters patent.Under modern constitutional conventions, no peerage dignity, with the possible exception of those given to members of the royal family, would be created if not upon the advice of theprime minister.

Many peers hold more than one hereditary title; for example, the same individual may be a duke, a marquess, an earl, a viscount, and a baron by virtue of different peerages. If such a person is entitled to sit in the House of Lords, he still only has one vote. However, until theHouse of Lords Act 1999it was possible for one of the peer's subsidiary titles to be passed to his heir before his death by means of awrit of acceleration,in which case the peer and his heir would have one vote each. Where this is not done, the heir may still use one of the father's subsidiary titles as a "courtesy title",but he is not considered a peer.

Inheritance of peerages

The mode of inheritance of an hereditary peerage is determined by the method of its creation. Titles may be created by writ of summons or byletters patent.The former is merely a summons of an individual to Parliament and does not explicitly confer a peerage; descent is always to theheirs of the body,male and female. The latter method explicitly creates a peerage and names the dignity in question. Letters patent may state the course of descent; usually, this is only to male heirs, but by aspecial remainderother descents can be specified. TheGender Recognition Act 2004regulatesacquired genderand provides that acquiring a new gender under the Act does not affect the descent of any peerage.

A child is deemed to belegitimateif its parents are married at the time of its birth or marry later; only legitimate children may succeed to a title, and furthermore, an English, Irish, or British (but not Scottish) peerage can only be inherited by a child born legitimate, not legitimated by a later marriage.

Normally, a peerage passes to the next holder on the death of the previous holder. However,Edward IVintroduced a procedure known as awrit of acceleration,whereby it was possible for the eldest son of a peer holding more than one peerage to sit in the House of Lords by virtue of one of his father's subsidiary dignities.

A person who is a possible heir to a peerage is said to be "in remainder". A title becomesextinct(an opposite toextant,alive) when all possible heirs (as provided by the letters patent) have died out; i.e., there is nobody in remainder at the death of the holder. A title becomesdormantif nobody has claimed the title, or if no claim has been satisfactorily proven. A title goes intoabeyanceif there is more than one person equally entitled to be the holder.

In the past, peerages were sometimesforfeitorattaintedunder Acts of Parliament, most often as the result oftreasonon the part of the holder. The blood of an attainted peer was considered "corrupted", consequently his or her descendants could not inherit the title. If all descendants of the attainted peer were to die out, however, then an heir from another branch of the family not affected by the attainder could take the title. TheForfeiture Act 1870abolished corruption of blood; instead of losing the peerage, a peer convicted of treason would be disqualified from sitting in Parliament for the period of imprisonment.

TheTitles Deprivation Act 1917permitted the Crown tosuspendpeerages if their holders had fought against the United Kingdom during theFirst World War.Guilt was to be determined by a committee of thePrivy Council;either House of Parliament could reject the committee's report within 40 days of its presentation. In 1919,King George Vissued anOrder in Councilsuspending theDukedom of Albany(together with its subsidiary peerages, theEarldom of Clarenceand theBarony of Arklow), theDukedom of Cumberland and Teviotdale(along with theEarldom of Armagh) and theViscountcy of Taaffe(along with theBarony of Ballymote). Under the Titles Deprivation Act, the successors to the peerages may petition the Crown for a reinstatement of the titles; so far, none of them has chosen to do so (the Taaffe and Ballymote peerages would have become extinct in 1967).

Nothing prevents a British peerage from being held by a foreign citizen (although such peers cannot sit in the House of Lords, while the termforeigndoes not include Irish or Commonwealth citizens). Several descendants of George III were British peers and German subjects; theLords Fairfax of Cameronwere American citizens for several generations.

A peer may alsodisclaiman hereditary peerage under thePeerage Act 1963.To do so, the peer must deliver an instrument of disclaimer to theLord Chancellorwithin 12 months of succeeding to the peerage, or, if under the age of 21 at the time of succession, within 12 months of becoming 21 years old. If, at the time of succession, the peer is a member of theHouse of Commons,then the instrument must be delivered within one month of succession; meanwhile, the peer may not sit or vote in the House of Commons. Prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, a hereditary peer could not disclaim a peerage after having applied for a writ of summons to Parliament; now, however, hereditary peers do not have the automatic right to a writ of summons to the House. Irish peerages may not be disclaimed. A peer who disclaims the peerage loses all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage; his wife or her husband is similarly affected. No further hereditary peerages may be conferred upon the person, but life peerages may be. The peerage remains without a holder until the death of the peer making the disclaimer, when it descends normally.

Merging in the Crown

See also:Category:British and Irish peerages which merged in the Crown

A title held by someone who becomes monarch is said tomerge in the Crownand therefore ceases to exist, because the sovereign cannot hold a dignity from himself.

TheDukedoms of Cornwalland ofRothesay,and theEarldom of Carrick,are special cases, which when not in use are said tolapse to the Crown:they are construed as existing, but held by no one, during such periods. These peerages are also special in that they are never directly inherited. The Dukedom of Cornwall was held formerly by the eldest son of the King of England, and the Dukedom of Rothesay, the Earldom of Carrick, and certain non-peerage titles (Baron of Renfrew,Lord of the Islesand Prince andGreat Steward of Scotland) by the eldest son of theKing of Scotland.Since those titles have been united, the dukedoms and associated subsidiary titles are held by the eldest son of the monarch. In Scotland, the titleDuke of Rothesayis used for life or until ascension. In England andNorthern Ireland,the titleDuke of Cornwallis used until the heir apparent is createdPrince of Wales;at the same time as the principality is created, the duke is also createdEarl of Chester.The earldom is a special case, because it is not hereditary, instead revesting or merging in the Crown if the prince succeeds to the Crown or predeceases the monarch: thusGeorge III(then the grandson of the reigning monarch) was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester a month after the death of his fatherFrederick, Prince of Wales.

The Dukedom of Cornwall is associated with theDuchy of Cornwall;the former is a peerage dignity, while the latter is an estate held by the Duke of Cornwall. Income from the Duchy goes to the Duke of Cornwall, or, when there is no duke, to the sovereign (but the money is then paid to the heir to the throne under theSovereign Grant Act 2011).

The only other duchy in the United Kingdom is theDuchy of Lancaster,which is also an estate rather than a peerage dignity. The Dukedom of Lancaster merged in the Crown whenHenry of Monmouth, Duke of Lancasterbecame King Henry V. Nonetheless, theDuchyof Lancaster continues to exist, theoretically run by theChancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster(which is normally asinecureposition with no actual duties related to the duchy and is used to appoint aminister without portfolio). The Duchy of Lancaster is the inherited property that belongs personally to the monarch, rather than tothe Crown.Thus, while income from theCrown Estateis turned over to the Exchequer in return for aSovereign grantpayment, the income from the duchy forms a part of thePrivy Purse,the personal funds of the Sovereign.

Writs of summons

Main article:Writ of summons

At the beginning of each new parliament, each peer who has established his or her right to attend Parliament is issued awritof summons. Without the writ, no peer may sit or vote in Parliament.The form of writs of summons has changed little over the centuries. It is established precedent that the sovereign may not deny writs of summons to qualified peers.

Baronies by writ

By modern English law, if a writ of summons was issued to a person who was not a peer, that person took his seat in Parliament, and the parliament was a parliament in the modern sense (including representatives of the Commons), that single writ created abarony,a perpetual peerage inheritable bymale-preference primogeniture.This was not medieval practice, and it is doubtful whether any writ was ever issued with the intent of creating such a peerage. The last instance of a man being summoned by writ without already holding a peerage was under the early Tudors; the first clear decision that a single writ (as opposed to a long succession of writs) created a peerage was inLord Abergavenny's case of 1610. TheHouse of Lords Act 1999also renders it doubtful that such a writ would now create a peer if one were now issued; however, this doctrine is applied retrospectively: if it can be shown that a writwasissued, that the recipient sat and that the council in question was a parliament, the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords determines who is now entitled to the peerage as though modern law had always applied. Several such long-lost baronies were claimed in the 19th and 20th centuries, though the committee was not consistent on what constituted proof of a writ, what constituted proof of sitting, and which 13th-century assemblages were actually parliaments.Even a writ issued in error is held to create a peerage unless the writ was cancelled before the recipient took his seat; the cancellation was performed by the now obsolete writ ofsupersedeas.

Peerages created by writ of summons are presumed to be inheritable only by the recipient'sheirs of the body.The House of Lords has settled such a presumption in several cases, includingLord Grey's Case(1640) Cro Cas 601,theClifton Barony Case(1673), theVaux Peerage Case(1837) 5 Cl & Fin 526, theBraye Peerage Case(1839) 6 Cl & Fin 757 and theHastings Peerage Case(1841) 8 Cl & Fin 144. The meaning ofheir of the bodyis determined by common law. Essentially, descent is by the rules ofmale primogeniture,a mechanism whereby normally, male descendants of the peer take precedence over female descendants, with children representing their deceased ancestors, and wherein the senior line of descent always takes precedence over the junior line per each gender. These rules, however, are amended by the proviso whereby sisters (and their heirs) are consideredco-heirs;seniority of the line is irrelevant when succession is through a female line. In other words, no woman inherits because she is older than her sisters. If all of the co-heirs but one die, then the surviving co-heir succeeds to the title. Otherwise, the title remainsabeyantuntil the sovereign "terminates" the abeyance in favour of one of the co-heirs. The termination of an abeyance is entirely at the discretion of the Crown.

Awrit of accelerationis a type of writ of summons that enables the eldest son of a peer to attend the House of Lords using one of his father's subsidiary titles. The title is strictly not inherited by the eldest son, however; it remains vested in the father. A writ may be granted only if the title being accelerated is a subsidiary one, and not the main title, and if the beneficiary of the writ is the heir-apparent of the actual holder of the title. A total of ninety-fourwrits of accelerationhave been issued sinceEdward IVissued the first one, including four writs issued in the twentieth century. The only individual who recently sat in the House of Lords by writ of acceleration isViscount Cranbornein 1992, through theBarony of Cecilwhich was actually being held by his father, theMarquess of Salisbury.(Viscount Cranborne succeeded to the marquessate on the death of his father in 2003.)

There are no Scottish peerages created by writ; neither can Scottish baronies go into abeyance, for Scots law does not hold sisters as equal heirs regardless of age. Furthermore, there is only one extant barony by writ in thePeerage of Ireland,that ofLa Poer,now held by theMarquess of Waterford.(Certain other baronies were originally created by writ but later confirmed by letters patent.)

Letters patent

More often,letters patentare used to create peerages. Letters patent must explicitly name the recipient of the title and specify the course of descent; the exact meaning of the term is determined bycommon law.Forremaindersin thePeerage of the United Kingdom,the most common wording is "to have and to hold unto him and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten". Where the letters patent specifies the peer'sheirs male of the bodyas successors, the rules ofagnaticsuccession apply, meaning that succession is through the male line only. Some very old titles, like theEarldom of Arlington,may pass toheirs of the body(not just heirs-male), these follow the same rules of descent as do baronies by writ and seem able to fall into abeyance as well. Many Scottish titles allow for passage toheirs general of the body,in which case the rules of maleprimogenitureapply; they do not fall into abeyance, as under Scots law, sisters are not treated as equal co-heirs. English and British letters patent that do not specify a course of descent are invalid, though the same is not true for the letters patent creating peers in thePeerage of Scotland.The House of Lords has ruled in certain cases that when the course of descent is not specified, or when the letters patent are lost, the title descends to heirs-male.

Limitation to heirs of the body

It is generally necessary for English patents to include limitation to heirs "of the body", unless aspecial remainderis specified (see below). The limitation indicates that only lineal descendants of the original peer may succeed to the peerage. In some very rare instances, the limitation was left out. In theDevon Peerage Case(1831) 2 Dow & Cl 200,the House of Lords permitted an heir who was acollateral descendantof the original peer to take his seat. The precedent, however, was reversed in 1859, when the House of Lords decided in theWiltes Peerage Case(1869) LR 4 HL 126that a patent that did not include the words "of the body" would be heldvoid.

Special remainder

It is possible for a patent to allow for succession by someone other than an heir-male or heir of the body, under a so-calledspecial remainder.Several instances may be cited: theBarony of Nelson(to an elder brother and his heirs-male), theEarldom of Roberts(to a daughter and her heirs-male), theBarony of Amherst(to a nephew and his heirs-male) and theDukedom of Dover(to a younger son and his heirs-male while the eldest son is still alive). In many cases, at the time of the grant the proposed peer in question had no sons, nor any prospect of producing any, and the special remainder was made to allow remembrance of his personal honour to continue after his death and to preclude an otherwise certain rapid extinction of the peerage. However, in all cases the course of descent specified in the patent must be known in common law. For instance, the Crown may not make a "shifting limitation" in the letters patent; in other words, the patent may not vest the peerage in an individual and then, before that person's death, shift the title to another person. The doctrine was established in theBuckhurst Peerage Case(1876) 2 App Cas 1,in which the House of Lords deemed invalid the clause intended to keep theBarony of Buckhurstseparate from theEarldom of De La Warr(the invalidation of clause may not affect the validity of the letters patent itself). The patent stipulated that if the holder of the barony should ever inherit the earldom, then he would be deprived of the barony, which would instead pass to the next successor as if the deprived holder had died without issue.

Amendment of letters patent

Letters patent granting theDukedom of Marlboroughto SirJohn Churchillwere later amended by Parliament

Letters patent are not absolute; they may be amended or revoked byAct of Parliament.For example, Parliament amended the letters patent creating theDukedom of Marlboroughin 1706. The patent originally provided that the dukedom could be inherited by the heirs-male of the body of the first duke,Captain-GeneralSirJohn Churchill.One son had died in infancy and the other died in 1703 fromsmallpox.Under Parliament's amendment to the patent, designed to allow the famous general's honour to survive after his death, the dukedom was allowed to pass to the Duke's daughters;Lady Henrietta,theCountess of Sunderland,theCountess of BridgewaterandLady Maryand their heirs-male - and thereafter "to all and every other the issue male and female, lineally descending of or from the said Duke of Marlborough, in such manner and for such estate as the same are before limited to the before-mentioned issue of the said Duke, it being intended that the said honours shall continue, remain, and be invested in all the issue of the said Duke, so long as any such issue male or female shall continue, and be held by them severally and successively in manner and form aforesaid, the elder and the descendants of every elder issue to be preferred before the younger of such issue."

Number of hereditary peers

The number of peers has varied considerably with time. At the end of theWars of the Roses,which killed many peers, and degraded or attainted many others, there were only 29 Lords Temporal; but the population of England was also much smaller then. The Tudors doubled the number of Peers, creating many but executing others; at the death of Queen Elizabeth I, there were 59.

Creation of English peerage dignities by Stuart monarchs

Sovereign	Reign	Peers
James I	1603–1625	62
Charles I	1625–1649	59
Charles II	1660–1685	64
James II	1685–1689	8
William III&Mary II	1689–1702	30
Anne	1702–1714	30
Total	1603–1714	253

The number of peers then grew under the Stuarts and all later monarchs. By the time ofQueen Anne'sdeath in 1714, there were 168 peers. In 1712, Queen Anne was called upon to create 12 peers in one day in order to pass a government measure,more thanQueen Elizabeth Ihad created during a 45-year reign.

Several peers were alarmed at the rapid increase in the size of the Peerage, fearing that their individual importance and power would decrease as the number of peers increased. Therefore, in 1719, abillwas introduced in the House of Lords to place a limitation on the Crown's power. It sought to permit no more than six new creations, and thereafter one new creation for each other title that became extinct. But it did allow the Crown to bestow titles on members of theRoyal Familywithout any such limitation. The Bill was rejected in its final stage in the Lords, but it was passed in the Lords when it was reintroduced in the next year. Nonetheless, the House of Commons rejected thePeerage Billby 269 to 177.

George IIIwas especially profuse with the creation of titles, mainly due to the desire of some of his Prime Ministers to obtain a majority in the House of Lords. During his 12 years in power,Lord Northhad about 30 new peerages created. DuringWilliam Pitt the Younger's 17-year tenure, over 140 new peerages were awarded.

A restriction on the creation of peerages, but only in the Peerage of Ireland, was enacted under theActs of Union 1800that combined Ireland and Great Britain into the United Kingdom in 1801. New creations were restricted to a maximum of one new Irish peerage for every three existing Irish peerages that became extinct, excluding those held concurrently with an English or British peerage; only if the total number of Irish peers dropped below 100 could the Sovereign create one new Irish peerage for each extinction.

There were no restrictions on creations in thePeerage of the United Kingdom.The Peerage continued to swell through the 19th century. In the 20th century, there were even more creations, as Prime Ministers were again eager to secure majorities in the House of Lords. Peerages were handed out not to honour the recipient but to give him a seat in the House of Lords.

Current status

In 1984 Harold Macmillan, a former prime minister, was the last non-royal recipient of a hereditary peerage, theEarldom of Stockton

Matt Ridley,science writer and conservative journalist, is theViscount Ridley

Since the start of theLabourgovernment ofHarold Wilsonin1964,the practice of granting hereditary peerages has largely ceased except for members of theroyal family.Only seven hereditary peers have been created since 1965: four in the royal family (theDuke of York,theEarl of Wessex,theDuke of Cambridge,and theDuke of Sussex) and three additional creations underMargaret Thatcher's government (theViscount Whitelaw[had four daughters], theViscount Tonypandy[had no issue] and theEarl of Stockton[with issue]). The two viscounts died without male heirs, extinguishing their titles.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stocktonreceived the earldom customarily bestowed on formerprime ministersafter he retired from theHouse of Commons.As for the practice of granting hereditary titles (usually earldoms) to male commoners who married into the royal family, the latest offer of such peerage was in 1973 to CaptainMark Phillips(husband ofThe Princess Anne) who declined, and the most recent to accept was theEarl of Snowdon(husband ofThe Princess Margaret) in 1961.

There is no statute that prevents the creation of new hereditary peerages; they may technically be created at any time, and the government continues to maintain pro forma letters patent for their creation. The most recent policies outlining the creation of new peerages, theRoyal Warrant of 2004,explicitly apply to both hereditary and life peers.However, successive governments have largely disowned the practice, and the Royal Household website currently describes the King as thefount of honourfor "life peerages, knighthoods and gallantry awards", with no mention of hereditary titles.In 2024, theStarmer Labour governmentannounced in theKing's speechthat they would bring in legislation to abolish the remaining hereditary peers' rights to sit in the House of Lords.

Roles

Until the coming into force of thePeerage Act 1963,peers could not disclaim their peerage in order to sit in theHouse of Commons,and thus a peerage was sometimes seen as an impediment to a future political career. The law changed due to an agreement that the Labour MPTony Benn(formerly theViscount Stansgate) having been deprived of his seat due to an inadvertent inheritance was undemocratic, and the desire of the Conservatives to put their choice of prime minister (ultimatelyAlec Douglas-Home) into the House of Commons, which by that time was deemed politically necessary.

In 1999, theHouse of Lords Actabolished the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. Out of about 750 hereditary peers, only 92 may sit in the House of Lords. The Act provides that 90 of those 92 seats are to be elected by other members of the House: 15 by vote of the whole house (including life peers), 42 by the Conservative hereditary peers, two by the Labour hereditary peers, three by the Liberal Democrat hereditary peers, and 28 by thecrossbenchhereditary peers. Elections were held in October and November 1999 to choose those initial 90 peers, with all hereditary peers eligible to vote. Hereditary peers elected hold their seats until their death, resignation or exclusion for non-attendance (the latter two means introduced by theHouse of Lords Reform Act 2014), at which pointby-electionsare held to maintain the number at 92.

The remaining two hold their seats by right of the hereditary offices ofEarl MarshalandLord Great Chamberlain.These offices are hereditary in themselves, and in recent times have been held by theDukes of Norfolkand theBarons Carringtonrespectively. These are the only two hereditary peers whose right to sit is automatic.

The Government reserves a number of political and ceremonial positions for hereditary peers. To encourage hereditary peers in the House of Lords to follow the party line, a number oflords-in-waiting(government whips) are usually hereditary peers. This practice was not adhered to by theLabour governmentof 1997–2010due to the small number of Labour hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

Modern composition of the hereditary peerage

Many hereditary peers are associated with famous estates such asHatfield House;many notable estates are open to the public.

The peerage has traditionally been associated with high gentry, theBritish nobility,and in recent times, theConservative Party.Only a tiny proportion of wealthy people are peers, but the peerage includes a few of the very wealthiest people in the UK, such asHugh Grosvenor(the Duke of Westminster) andLord Salisbury,and indeed the world in the case ofDavid Thomson, 3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet.A few peers own one or more of England's largest estates passed down through inheritance, particularly those with medieval roots: until the late 19th century the dominant English and Scottish land division on death wasprimogeniture.

However, the proliferation of peerage creations in the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century resulted in even minor political figures entering the ranks of the peerage; these included newspaper owners (e.g.Alfred Harmsworth) andtrade unionleaders (e.g.Walter Citrine). As a result, there are many hereditary peers who have taken up careers which do not fit traditional conceptions of aristocracy. For example, Arup Kumar Sinha, 6thBaron Sinha,is a computer technician working for a travel agency;Matt Ridley,5thViscount Ridley,is a popular science writer;Timothy Bentinck, 12th Earl of Portland,is an actor and plays David Archer in theBBC's long-running radiosoap opera,The Archers;andPeter St Clair-Erskine,7thEarl of Rosslyn,is a formerMetropolitan Police ServiceCommander. TheEarl of Longfordwas a socialist and prison reformer, whileTony Benn,who renounced his peerage asViscount Stansgate(only for his son to reclaim the family title after his death) was a senior government minister (later a writer and orator) withleft-wingpolicies.

Gender distribution

See also:List of peerages inherited by women

As the vast majority of hereditary peerages can only be inherited by men, the number of peeresses in their own right is very small; only 18 out of 758 hereditary peers by succession, or 2.4%, were female, as of 1992. All female hereditary peers succeeding after 1980 have been to English or Scottish peerages originally created before 1700. Of the over 800 hereditary peerages created since 1863, only 13 could be inherited by daughters of the original recipient, and none can be inherited by granddaughters or higher-order female descendants of the original recipient.The2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burmawas the last woman to hold such a post-1900 title from 1979 until her death in 2017.

From 1963 (when female hereditary peers were allowed to enter the House of Lords) to 1999, there has been a total of 25 female hereditary peers.

Of those92 currently sitting in the House of Lords,none are female, since the retirement ofMargaret of Mar, 31st Countess of Mar,in 2020.Originally five female peers were elected under theHouse of Lords Act 1999(out of seven female candidates;all of themcrossbenchers). But all of these have since died or resigned,and no woman has stood in a by-election to a vacant Lords seat since 1999. A single female peer, the 29thBaroness Dacre,is listed in the "Register of Hereditary Peers" among about 200 male peers as willing to stand in by-elections, as of October 2020.

See also

• List of hereditary baronies in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
• List of hereditary peers elected under the House of Lords Act 1999
• By-elections to the House of Lords
• List of hereditary peers in the House of Lords by virtue of a life peerage
• Reform of the House of Lords
• Roll of the Peerage
• Substantive title
• Writ of acceleration
• TheHereditary Peerage Association

References

• Blackstone, William(1765).Commentaries on the Laws of England.Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Cox, Noel(1997). "The British Peerage: The Legal Standing of the Peerage and Baronetage in the overseas realms of the Crown with particular reference to New Zealand".New Zealand Universities Law Review.17(4): 379–401.SSRN420754.
• Ellis, Robert Geoffrey(1911)."Peerage".InChisholm, Hugh(ed.).Encyclopædia Britannica.Vol. 21 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 45–55.
• May, Erskine(1896).Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George the Third(11th ed.). London: Longmans, Green and Co. Archived fromthe originalon 18 July 2006.
• McCallion, Peter (2003)."Letter to The Earl Alexander of Tunis".Hereditary Peerage Association.Archived fromthe originalon 26 October 2019.Retrieved2 May2004.
• First Report from the Committee for Privileges(Report). 18 October 1999. HL 106-I. Archived fromthe originalon 8 September 2008.
• "House of Lords Debates, Vol. 600, col. 1156".The United Kingdom Parliament.1998–1999. Archived fromthe originalon 30 June 2004.

UK legislation

• Text of the House of Lords Act 1999. (c. 34).as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, fromlegislation.gov.uk.
• Text of the Peerage Act 1963. (1963 c. 48).as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, fromlegislation.gov.uk.
• Text of the Titles Deprivation Act 1917. (7 & 8 George 5 c 47).as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, fromlegislation.gov.uk.

External links

• "Three Summonses to the Parliament of 1295".Internet History Sourcebooks Project.
• "Writ of Summons to Parliament for Lord Fisherwick".Tiersma Collection.The Peter C. Tiersma Collection at Loyola Marymount University. 18 June 2017.
• Banks, Thomas Christopher(1844).Baronia anglica concentrata; or, A concentrated account of all the baronies commonly called baronies in fee; deriving their origin from writ of summons and not from any specific limited creation... whereto is added the proofs of parliamentary sitting, from the reign of Edward I to that of Queen Anne; also A glossary of dormant English, Scotch, and Irish peerage titles.London: Ripon.