I deeply regret the removal of hereditary peers as well. The comforting news is that they haven't been subjected to execution, nor their bloodlines purged, so they can still be a part of public life for the foreseeable future.
Parliament is supposed to be a place of honour. Parliaments around the world, and the American Congress, have adopted the titles and stylings of the honourable. The adoption is from the Parliament of the home country.
I think the reforms of the other place have been naked republicanism. We honour the monarch because of the will of the very founder of the country to have their heirs on the throne. We should have peers that reflect that same honour. Ancient peers were warriors. They defended the Crown and realm.
I think it is reasonable that post-medieval peers should come under scrutiny. I don’t know much history of the peerage after the Tudors. I may incorrectly understand some modern peers were simply socialites. It would be honourable to choose to not convene in the Palace of Westminster without the honour of coming from the founders and defenders of the kingdom.
The days of the warrior nobility of Europe have largely passed. Our instincts have not. You mention the inclusion of defense chiefs making sense to us. We naturally know what’s honourable. If someone was to be a non-hereditary peer for some term then a general or admiral is common sense.
It’s interesting that you remark new peers speak too much. The same phenomenon has happened with the US Supreme Court where the newest justice spoke over twenty times more words than the quietest justice last year. The newest member has garnered some criticism from the public about it.
You mention the ancient roots of the Privy Council. What rootless people sit on it now? What rootless people sit in the House of Lords? Citizens of the world. Cosmopolitans. Globalists. Allegiances to the European Union and other foreign projects. People with no roots in cultivating and defending the land, and no kinship with its people.
In the Netherlands this year they celebrated the anniversary of Market Garden. Graves and memorials were cleaned and decorated with the finest flowers. Those still with us who served were deeply thanked. There was so much honour in educating the youngest generation to thank those who sacrificed in attempting to liberate Holland and the Low Countries. The final radio transmission from the boys on the ground was “Out of Ammo. God Save the King.” THAT is where a peer comes from. That is the spirit that belongs in the House of Peers. Not giving a stipend to an MP who managed to make the country one percent more socialist.
I would rather see the House of Lords be ceremonial and powerless in reforming it than for it to have a modern lacking of honour. I’d rather it just convene for the opening of parliament than be a legislating body, as lovely as a detail oriented house of revision would be. I’d rather see it only hereditary peers than being without them, even though I see room for appointments.
The King of England was put into check by Barons, not a mob with pitchforks and torches. Without Ealdorman there would be no Earls. Without Barons there would be no Parliament. Without the House of Commons there would still be the House of Lords and Privy Council. Without the honour and history of the House of Lords and Privy Council there would be no House of Commons.
Whether it was Danes over one thousand years ago, or liberating allies in living memory. I think the reform the House of Lords deserves is honour.
Excellent explanation of this somewhat Byzantine history. The Lords should definitely be reformed. How is the question. I would like to see you in it though.
I would hope that a serious discussion with a group of experts on the subject could deliver a reasonable and effective solution. We can put feet on the moon so?
Surely there is a better way. Our taxes deserve to be allocated to best practices.
Interestingly, most constitutional change in this country has come about as a response to an immediate need, or sometimes even a crisis. In my view, the efforts to impose a new structure that has been thought through, e.g. Blair's reforms, have not worked.
Checks and balances are definitely necessary but I think what encourages people to wish the lords gone is (a) being appointed because of cronyism re the outgoing pm and (b) the fact that many of those appointments just see it as a way to make a bit of extra money with not much effort other than turning up for short periods. If reform could make the lords actually be seen to do a reasonable amount of work or lose their position that would definitely do away with the feeling that it is entitlement rather than merit that keeps them in post. Although I suppose you could also apply that to a number of the commons! Accountability is what the public do not see in government. If we fail to do our jobs properly we lose them or lose pay and position. That should more so the case in government since taxpayers are funding it.
It has to be hoped that the whole of the Lords is better than the sum of its parts, because you are right to say that a number of peerage creations have not inspired confidence in the institution.
I deeply regret the removal of hereditary peers as well. The comforting news is that they haven't been subjected to execution, nor their bloodlines purged, so they can still be a part of public life for the foreseeable future.
Parliament is supposed to be a place of honour. Parliaments around the world, and the American Congress, have adopted the titles and stylings of the honourable. The adoption is from the Parliament of the home country.
I think the reforms of the other place have been naked republicanism. We honour the monarch because of the will of the very founder of the country to have their heirs on the throne. We should have peers that reflect that same honour. Ancient peers were warriors. They defended the Crown and realm.
I think it is reasonable that post-medieval peers should come under scrutiny. I don’t know much history of the peerage after the Tudors. I may incorrectly understand some modern peers were simply socialites. It would be honourable to choose to not convene in the Palace of Westminster without the honour of coming from the founders and defenders of the kingdom.
The days of the warrior nobility of Europe have largely passed. Our instincts have not. You mention the inclusion of defense chiefs making sense to us. We naturally know what’s honourable. If someone was to be a non-hereditary peer for some term then a general or admiral is common sense.
It’s interesting that you remark new peers speak too much. The same phenomenon has happened with the US Supreme Court where the newest justice spoke over twenty times more words than the quietest justice last year. The newest member has garnered some criticism from the public about it.
You mention the ancient roots of the Privy Council. What rootless people sit on it now? What rootless people sit in the House of Lords? Citizens of the world. Cosmopolitans. Globalists. Allegiances to the European Union and other foreign projects. People with no roots in cultivating and defending the land, and no kinship with its people.
In the Netherlands this year they celebrated the anniversary of Market Garden. Graves and memorials were cleaned and decorated with the finest flowers. Those still with us who served were deeply thanked. There was so much honour in educating the youngest generation to thank those who sacrificed in attempting to liberate Holland and the Low Countries. The final radio transmission from the boys on the ground was “Out of Ammo. God Save the King.” THAT is where a peer comes from. That is the spirit that belongs in the House of Peers. Not giving a stipend to an MP who managed to make the country one percent more socialist.
I would rather see the House of Lords be ceremonial and powerless in reforming it than for it to have a modern lacking of honour. I’d rather it just convene for the opening of parliament than be a legislating body, as lovely as a detail oriented house of revision would be. I’d rather see it only hereditary peers than being without them, even though I see room for appointments.
The King of England was put into check by Barons, not a mob with pitchforks and torches. Without Ealdorman there would be no Earls. Without Barons there would be no Parliament. Without the House of Commons there would still be the House of Lords and Privy Council. Without the honour and history of the House of Lords and Privy Council there would be no House of Commons.
Whether it was Danes over one thousand years ago, or liberating allies in living memory. I think the reform the House of Lords deserves is honour.
Thanks for the article
Thank you. I would encourage other subscribers to read your thought-provoking historical analysis.
Excellent explanation of this somewhat Byzantine history. The Lords should definitely be reformed. How is the question. I would like to see you in it though.
I would hope that a serious discussion with a group of experts on the subject could deliver a reasonable and effective solution. We can put feet on the moon so?
Surely there is a better way. Our taxes deserve to be allocated to best practices.
The problem is who chooses the experts. "Experts" have had a mixed benefit in recent years.
Interestingly, most constitutional change in this country has come about as a response to an immediate need, or sometimes even a crisis. In my view, the efforts to impose a new structure that has been thought through, e.g. Blair's reforms, have not worked.
Checks and balances are definitely necessary but I think what encourages people to wish the lords gone is (a) being appointed because of cronyism re the outgoing pm and (b) the fact that many of those appointments just see it as a way to make a bit of extra money with not much effort other than turning up for short periods. If reform could make the lords actually be seen to do a reasonable amount of work or lose their position that would definitely do away with the feeling that it is entitlement rather than merit that keeps them in post. Although I suppose you could also apply that to a number of the commons! Accountability is what the public do not see in government. If we fail to do our jobs properly we lose them or lose pay and position. That should more so the case in government since taxpayers are funding it.
It has to be hoped that the whole of the Lords is better than the sum of its parts, because you are right to say that a number of peerage creations have not inspired confidence in the institution.
I read the book, which I thoroughly enjoyed, but have not yet seen the film.