Talk:Peerage Act 1963

Politics of the United Kingdom Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The article on Alec Douglas-Home claims that "On his death, he was succeeded as Earl of Home by his son, David."

Does this mean that when Tony Benn dies, that Hilary Benn will end up the Third Viscount Stansgate?

I believe so, however, because of the House of Lords Act 1999, the title would not allow him to take up a seat in the House of Lords. He would have to be appointed a life peer. Mintguy 15:19, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I believe Stephen Benn is older than Hilary and thus the heir to the viscountcy. --rbrwr

Although Tony was a second son he inherited as his older brother died without issue, killed in action in 1944. Stephen Benn has a son, so Tony's second son Hilary is now third in line garryq 13:48, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought I read somewhere that the Act had time limits - that peers must renounce within six months (or something) of either the Act being passed (not sure on this bit) or inheriting their titles - the idea being that subsequently established members of the House of Lords couldn't just pop down to the Commons when they felt like it. (I guess it was seen as okay for an existing established hereditary peer to do so at the time because up to then they had had no choice in the matter.) Anyone know any more on this?

A peerage must be disclaimed within 12 months of inheriting it, or within 12 months of the act beeing passed. There was a very much shorter period if the person inheriting was an MP and wanted to retain his seat. If the MP went beyond that short limit he was disqualified, but as long as he disclaimed within the 12 months he could stand again. garryq 13:29, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wonder how that works for people who inherit their title when they are infants? Morwen 19:50, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

"or, if he is then under twenty-one years of age, twelve months beginning with the day on which he attains that age;" [1] --rbrwr ˆ 19:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

list of disclaimed peerages (are there any others?)

Yes. My ancient Whitaker's Almanac (1985 edition) lists: Earl of Durham, Earl of Home, Earl of Sandwich, Viscount Hailsham, Viscount Stansgate, Lord Altrincham, Lord Archibald, Lord Beaverbrook, Lord Fraser of Allander, Lord Merthyr, Lord Monkswell, Lord Reith, Lord Sanderson of Ayot, Lord Silkin, Lord Southampton. Doubtless one of our peerage experts will be along with a full list at any moment. --rbrwr ˆ (ps. Fraser of Allander, the only red link in that list, was created for Hugh "House of" Fraser and is now extinct.)

Malcolm St Clair

Mr St Clair then accepted the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds, thereby disqualifying himself from the House

List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead claims he took that office instead. Which is correct? Psmith 22:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wives and family

Version before recent changes:

A peer who disclaims the peerage and his wife lose all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage.

Iainscott's version:

A peer (and thier family) who disclaims the peerage lose all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage.

My version:

A peer who disclaims the peerage loses all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage; if he is a married man, so does his wife.

The first version is grammatically odd, as Iain spotted. However "family" is not what it says in the Act ([2]). It specifically says wife. The fact that a disclaimed peer also disclaims his subsidiary titles presumably means that his eldest son cannot use it as a courtesy title. However, I do wonder whether this means that all titles are lost by the family; for example does his mother, if circumstances otherwise permit, retain her title as dowager? Iain's version implies that she would lose the title, and I'm not convinced that the act says that. --rbrwr ^± 13:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only the peer concerned and his wife lose their titles. Every other member of the family (including an eldest son using a courtesy peerage) keeps theirs. Proteus (Talk) 13:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --rbrwr ^± 13:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I had assumed that the title, and all titles derived from it, just sort of disappeared until the chap who disclaimed it died... thinking about it, the way the act has it does make more logical sense! Iain 09:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No more hereditary peerages

I notice that there's an average of ten hereditary peerages created per year up until about 1964, and after that almost none - and usually then mainly for members of the royal family. Is there any reason why this is so, as the article doesn't address this? What i'm getting at is this: is there some sort of policy (official or unofficial) to let hereditary titles eventually dwindle or die out through attrition? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]