Hereditary Peers Election to House of Lords

[johnb]

There was an absolutely wonderful interview on Daily Politics yesterday - I had to check whether it was April 1st. It really is worth watching (the interview starts approx 53 mins into the programme).

A bit of background - following the death of one of the hereditary peers who sit in the House of Lords there is going to be an election of a new peer to sit in the HofL. It seems that hereditary peers can put themselves forward and one is then elected by the hereditary peers currently entitled to sit in the House.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qh172/Daily_Politics_28_01_2013/

[Flosshilde]

An excellent advert for removing the hereditaries from the House of Lords.

Actually I hadn't realised that it was only the sitting hereditaries that could vote - I assumed it was all of them. Surely the ones not sitting should have a say in who represents them? (not that they are being represented, exactly).

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i wonder what weight of nonsense will eventually break our constitutional 'arrangements' .... by the time we are neither in nor out of the EU, Scotland is or is not independent [but a state?] and everyone wants Charles to abdicate in favour of William who has a daughter who marries a Roman Catholic we could be in a bit of a fix eh ..... and yep we do not in the least need a House of Lords

off with their heads, off with all their heads!

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes we need hereditary disappeers...

[vinteuil]

... some people are getting jolly excited at the prospect of equality being opened up by the proposed measures to enable first-born girly princesses to take precedence over their younger brother princes in the race to the throne.

And what kind of "equality", prithee, is it that gives priority over first-born sprogs to the detriment of younger siblings?

Why should an eldest born - girl or boy - be more deserving than a younger??

As a youngest son, I say - bring back the right of the Youngest to Inherit...

What was so wrong with Borough-English?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimogeniture

[Flosshilde]

... some people are getting jolly excited at the prospect of equality being opened up by the proposed measures to enable first-born girly princesses to take precedence over their younger brother princes in the race to the throne.

And what kind of "equality", prithee, is it that gives priority over first-born sprogs to the detriment of younger siblings?

Why should an eldest born - girl or boy - be more deserving than a younger??

As a youngest son, I say - bring back the right of the Youngest to Inherit...

What was so wrong with Borough-English?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimogeniture

Inheritance should be divided equally between all the offspring. So when Brenda dies the UK would be divided between her 4 children: Charles would obviously have Wales; Scotland has had dibs on Anne for some time (if Scotland is independent by then I think Anne would have been invited to become President); Eddie & Sophie should go to Northern Ireland (for no good reason other than the further the better), leaving England for Andy .
There could be problems with Charlie - I can see that he would feel entitled to Cornwall, so might launch a war against Andy to gain possession. He could also feel entitled to Bute, but as there is already a Marquis of Bute he would have to be conent with his titular possession & occupy Rothesasy.
When the first generation dies, their respective holdings would be divided between their offspring; for example, when Andy dies (in a helicopter crash?) England would be divided between Beatrice & the other one - B could take The North, & TOO the South.

[mangerton]

Inheritance should be divided equally between all the offspring. So when Brenda dies the UK would be divided between her 4 children: Charles would obviously have Wales; Scotland has had dibs on Anne for some time (if Scotland is independent by then I think Anne would have been invited to become President); Eddie & Sophie should go to Northern Ireland (for no good reason other than the further the better), leaving England for Andy .
There could be problems with Charlie - I can see that he would feel entitled to Cornwall, so might launch a war against Andy to gain possession. He could also feel entitled to Bute, but as there is already a Marquis of Bute he would have to be conent with his titular possession & occupy Rothesasy.
When the first generation dies, their respective holdings would be divided between their offspring; for example, when Andy dies (in a helicopter crash?) England would be divided between Beatrice & the other one - B could take The North, & TOO the South.

This all sounds good to me, or at least as un-bad as it could be. The only thing I'm not sure about is Chas. Yes, he is the Duke of Rothesay, but when was he last there? Has he ever been there? Does he know where it is? Can he even pronounce it?

He's not had much luck with Scottish islands. Some of us here might remember the 14 year old Chas having an under-age cherry brandy in a Stornoway Hotel.