Post 1999 will anyone be entitled to sit in the House of Lords by heredity alone?
Post 1999 will anyone new be entitled to sit in the House of Lords by heredity alone?
united-kingdom parliament house-of-lords
edited Feb 1 at 19:37
Machavity
16.5k44982
asked Feb 1 at 17:46
BenBen
2,9351337
add a comment |
Post 1999 will anyone new be entitled to sit in the House of Lords by heredity alone?
united-kingdom parliament house-of-lords
edited Feb 1 at 19:37
Machavity
16.5k44982
asked Feb 1 at 17:46
BenBen
2,9351337
1
By “heredity alone” do you mean to exclude by-elections among the hereditary peers?
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 17:59
"Post 1999" seems to go without saying... :D
– user22277
Feb 5 at 17:26
add a comment |
Post 1999 will anyone new be entitled to sit in the House of Lords by heredity alone?
united-kingdom parliament house-of-lords
edited Feb 1 at 19:37
Machavity
16.5k44982
asked Feb 1 at 17:46
BenBen
2,9351337
Post 1999 will anyone new be entitled to sit in the House of Lords by heredity alone?
united-kingdom parliament house-of-lords
united-kingdom parliament house-of-lords
edited Feb 1 at 19:37
Machavity
16.5k44982
asked Feb 1 at 17:46
BenBen
2,9351337
edited Feb 1 at 19:37
Machavity
16.5k44982
asked Feb 1 at 17:46
BenBen
2,9351337
edited Feb 1 at 19:37
Machavity
16.5k44982
edited Feb 1 at 19:37
Machavity
16.5k44982
edited Feb 1 at 19:37
Machavity
16.5k44982
16.5k44982
asked Feb 1 at 17:46
BenBen
2,9351337
asked Feb 1 at 17:46
BenBen
2,9351337
asked Feb 1 at 17:46
BenBen
2,9351337
2,9351337
1
By “heredity alone” do you mean to exclude by-elections among the hereditary peers?
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 17:59
"Post 1999" seems to go without saying... :D
– user22277
Feb 5 at 17:26
add a comment |
1
By “heredity alone” do you mean to exclude by-elections among the hereditary peers?
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 17:59
"Post 1999" seems to go without saying... :D
– user22277
Feb 5 at 17:26
1
1
By “heredity alone” do you mean to exclude by-elections among the hereditary peers?
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 17:59
By “heredity alone” do you mean to exclude by-elections among the hereditary peers?
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 17:59
"Post 1999" seems to go without saying... :D
– user22277
Feb 5 at 17:26
"Post 1999" seems to go without saying... :D
– user22277
Feb 5 at 17:26
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Most1 800-odd of the holders of hereditary peerages currently have three routes by which they might sit in the House of Lords:
- Be granted a Life Peerage. This has been done a number of times, for former Leaders of the House of Lords, for "hereditary Peers of first creation" and, possibly, some others.2
- Become a (senior) Church of England bishop.
- Be elected by their peers3 to fill one of the 90 seats set aside for representatives of the (since 1999) excluded hereditaries.
These are all interesting routes, but none of them fulfil the question's requirement that the peer sits in the House of Lords "by heredity alone". Nor does the death the of one of those 90: rather than their heir inheriting their place, all they inherit is eligibility to stand for the now vacant position, and the right to vote in the ensuing by-election.4
The two exceptions are the Earl Marshal (who is, confusingly, a Duke rather than an Earl) and the Lord Great Chamberlain, who both retain seats in order to fulfil certain ceremonial functions. These two positions are themselves hereditary. The office of Earl Marshal is held by the Dukes of Norfolk (initially by the 6th Duke, and currently by the 18th) and, when the current holder dies, the role of Earl Marshal -- and therefore a seat in the House of Lords -- will pass to his heir, the new 19th Duke.
The office of Lord Great Chamberlain, meanwhile, is hereditary "in gross", and accordingly there are currently fifteen5 people, each "Joint Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain", only one of whom exercises the office at any one time. Importantly, the holder of the office changes either when the current holder dies (in which case it passes to their heir) or upon the death of the Monarch, in which case the office passes to a different "branch".
So yes, it is possible to sit in the House of Lords by heredity alone. And, if you're very lucky, it's even possible to do it without having to lose a parent.
1 All but the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
2 But that's a topic for another question.
3 Pun intended.
4 Assuming they're a member of the same political party, as the seats are actually apportioned by the party memberships of the hereditary peers.
5 By my very rough count.
answered Feb 1 at 19:33
owjburnhamowjburnham
791313
Thank you. So whenever a seat becomes vacant all the hereditary peers without seats are eligible to stand in an election, voted in by all the other hereditary peers?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 20:00
9
Then could the Earl Marshal perhaps be considered the "Duke of Earl"?
– T.E.D.
Feb 1 at 21:12
2
@Ben More or less, yes. I’m rusty on the details, but IIRC if for example an hereditary sitting as a Conservative dies (or retires?) then hereditaries registered as Conservatives vote in the by-election. Ditto a vacancy for seats held by other parties, and for the group of unaffiliated hereditary peers. But the by-elections are run by the House under its Standing Orders, not by the parties themselves.
– owjburnham
Feb 2 at 1:09
1
"And, if you're very lucky, it's even possible to do it without having to lose a parent." ... not really, you can only become a "Joint Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain" by your parent dying first.
– Paŭlo Ebermann
Feb 3 at 14:54
@PaŭloEbermann damn, you’re right.
– owjburnham
Feb 3 at 15:01
add a comment |
The House of Lords act 1999, which is what I assume you are referring to, specifies that there will be 92 hereditary seats in the House of Lords. The Lords were also given the opportunity to choose which 90 peers kept their hereditary seats.
Wikipedia has an article spelling out how many of these 90 elected seats were allocated to each party, and a list of all present and past members of those seats.
The seats themselves are not actually hereditary except for the two office holders (the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain) which are hereditary positions. Rather, the right to be elected is hereditary. Whenever a seat opens, any eligible peer can be elected into it by the other hereditary seat-holders.
answered Feb 1 at 18:51
BobsonBobson
14k13373
So the descendants of those sitting in those 92 seats will automatically get a seat in the Lords?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 19:00
1
@Ben No. For full details, seem my impending, overly-detailed answer.
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:05
@Ben - Good question. I'd missed a part of it. Answer updated. You may want to hold off on accepting for a while, in case someone else (like owjburnham) provides a better answer.
– Bobson
Feb 1 at 19:07
@Bobson You beat me to it in the edit, which answered the two things that my answer really added
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:34
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38478%2fpost-1999-will-anyone-be-entitled-to-sit-in-the-house-of-lords-by-heredity-alone%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Most1 800-odd of the holders of hereditary peerages currently have three routes by which they might sit in the House of Lords:
- Be granted a Life Peerage. This has been done a number of times, for former Leaders of the House of Lords, for "hereditary Peers of first creation" and, possibly, some others.2
- Become a (senior) Church of England bishop.
- Be elected by their peers3 to fill one of the 90 seats set aside for representatives of the (since 1999) excluded hereditaries.
These are all interesting routes, but none of them fulfil the question's requirement that the peer sits in the House of Lords "by heredity alone". Nor does the death the of one of those 90: rather than their heir inheriting their place, all they inherit is eligibility to stand for the now vacant position, and the right to vote in the ensuing by-election.4
The two exceptions are the Earl Marshal (who is, confusingly, a Duke rather than an Earl) and the Lord Great Chamberlain, who both retain seats in order to fulfil certain ceremonial functions. These two positions are themselves hereditary. The office of Earl Marshal is held by the Dukes of Norfolk (initially by the 6th Duke, and currently by the 18th) and, when the current holder dies, the role of Earl Marshal -- and therefore a seat in the House of Lords -- will pass to his heir, the new 19th Duke.
The office of Lord Great Chamberlain, meanwhile, is hereditary "in gross", and accordingly there are currently fifteen5 people, each "Joint Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain", only one of whom exercises the office at any one time. Importantly, the holder of the office changes either when the current holder dies (in which case it passes to their heir) or upon the death of the Monarch, in which case the office passes to a different "branch".
So yes, it is possible to sit in the House of Lords by heredity alone. And, if you're very lucky, it's even possible to do it without having to lose a parent.
1 All but the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
2 But that's a topic for another question.
3 Pun intended.
4 Assuming they're a member of the same political party, as the seats are actually apportioned by the party memberships of the hereditary peers.
5 By my very rough count.
answered Feb 1 at 19:33
owjburnhamowjburnham
791313
Thank you. So whenever a seat becomes vacant all the hereditary peers without seats are eligible to stand in an election, voted in by all the other hereditary peers?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 20:00
9
Then could the Earl Marshal perhaps be considered the "Duke of Earl"?
– T.E.D.
Feb 1 at 21:12
2
@Ben More or less, yes. I’m rusty on the details, but IIRC if for example an hereditary sitting as a Conservative dies (or retires?) then hereditaries registered as Conservatives vote in the by-election. Ditto a vacancy for seats held by other parties, and for the group of unaffiliated hereditary peers. But the by-elections are run by the House under its Standing Orders, not by the parties themselves.
– owjburnham
Feb 2 at 1:09
1
"And, if you're very lucky, it's even possible to do it without having to lose a parent." ... not really, you can only become a "Joint Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain" by your parent dying first.
– Paŭlo Ebermann
Feb 3 at 14:54
@PaŭloEbermann damn, you’re right.
– owjburnham
Feb 3 at 15:01
add a comment |
Most1 800-odd of the holders of hereditary peerages currently have three routes by which they might sit in the House of Lords:
- Be granted a Life Peerage. This has been done a number of times, for former Leaders of the House of Lords, for "hereditary Peers of first creation" and, possibly, some others.2
- Become a (senior) Church of England bishop.
- Be elected by their peers3 to fill one of the 90 seats set aside for representatives of the (since 1999) excluded hereditaries.
These are all interesting routes, but none of them fulfil the question's requirement that the peer sits in the House of Lords "by heredity alone". Nor does the death the of one of those 90: rather than their heir inheriting their place, all they inherit is eligibility to stand for the now vacant position, and the right to vote in the ensuing by-election.4
The two exceptions are the Earl Marshal (who is, confusingly, a Duke rather than an Earl) and the Lord Great Chamberlain, who both retain seats in order to fulfil certain ceremonial functions. These two positions are themselves hereditary. The office of Earl Marshal is held by the Dukes of Norfolk (initially by the 6th Duke, and currently by the 18th) and, when the current holder dies, the role of Earl Marshal -- and therefore a seat in the House of Lords -- will pass to his heir, the new 19th Duke.
The office of Lord Great Chamberlain, meanwhile, is hereditary "in gross", and accordingly there are currently fifteen5 people, each "Joint Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain", only one of whom exercises the office at any one time. Importantly, the holder of the office changes either when the current holder dies (in which case it passes to their heir) or upon the death of the Monarch, in which case the office passes to a different "branch".
So yes, it is possible to sit in the House of Lords by heredity alone. And, if you're very lucky, it's even possible to do it without having to lose a parent.
1 All but the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
2 But that's a topic for another question.
3 Pun intended.
4 Assuming they're a member of the same political party, as the seats are actually apportioned by the party memberships of the hereditary peers.
5 By my very rough count.
answered Feb 1 at 19:33
owjburnhamowjburnham
791313
Thank you. So whenever a seat becomes vacant all the hereditary peers without seats are eligible to stand in an election, voted in by all the other hereditary peers?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 20:00
9
Then could the Earl Marshal perhaps be considered the "Duke of Earl"?
– T.E.D.
Feb 1 at 21:12
2
@Ben More or less, yes. I’m rusty on the details, but IIRC if for example an hereditary sitting as a Conservative dies (or retires?) then hereditaries registered as Conservatives vote in the by-election. Ditto a vacancy for seats held by other parties, and for the group of unaffiliated hereditary peers. But the by-elections are run by the House under its Standing Orders, not by the parties themselves.
– owjburnham
Feb 2 at 1:09
1
"And, if you're very lucky, it's even possible to do it without having to lose a parent." ... not really, you can only become a "Joint Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain" by your parent dying first.
– Paŭlo Ebermann
Feb 3 at 14:54
@PaŭloEbermann damn, you’re right.
– owjburnham
Feb 3 at 15:01
add a comment |
Most1 800-odd of the holders of hereditary peerages currently have three routes by which they might sit in the House of Lords:
- Be granted a Life Peerage. This has been done a number of times, for former Leaders of the House of Lords, for "hereditary Peers of first creation" and, possibly, some others.2
- Become a (senior) Church of England bishop.
- Be elected by their peers3 to fill one of the 90 seats set aside for representatives of the (since 1999) excluded hereditaries.
These are all interesting routes, but none of them fulfil the question's requirement that the peer sits in the House of Lords "by heredity alone". Nor does the death the of one of those 90: rather than their heir inheriting their place, all they inherit is eligibility to stand for the now vacant position, and the right to vote in the ensuing by-election.4
The two exceptions are the Earl Marshal (who is, confusingly, a Duke rather than an Earl) and the Lord Great Chamberlain, who both retain seats in order to fulfil certain ceremonial functions. These two positions are themselves hereditary. The office of Earl Marshal is held by the Dukes of Norfolk (initially by the 6th Duke, and currently by the 18th) and, when the current holder dies, the role of Earl Marshal -- and therefore a seat in the House of Lords -- will pass to his heir, the new 19th Duke.
The office of Lord Great Chamberlain, meanwhile, is hereditary "in gross", and accordingly there are currently fifteen5 people, each "Joint Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain", only one of whom exercises the office at any one time. Importantly, the holder of the office changes either when the current holder dies (in which case it passes to their heir) or upon the death of the Monarch, in which case the office passes to a different "branch".
So yes, it is possible to sit in the House of Lords by heredity alone. And, if you're very lucky, it's even possible to do it without having to lose a parent.
1 All but the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
2 But that's a topic for another question.
3 Pun intended.
4 Assuming they're a member of the same political party, as the seats are actually apportioned by the party memberships of the hereditary peers.
5 By my very rough count.
answered Feb 1 at 19:33
owjburnhamowjburnham
791313
Most1 800-odd of the holders of hereditary peerages currently have three routes by which they might sit in the House of Lords:
- Be granted a Life Peerage. This has been done a number of times, for former Leaders of the House of Lords, for "hereditary Peers of first creation" and, possibly, some others.2
- Become a (senior) Church of England bishop.
- Be elected by their peers3 to fill one of the 90 seats set aside for representatives of the (since 1999) excluded hereditaries.
These are all interesting routes, but none of them fulfil the question's requirement that the peer sits in the House of Lords "by heredity alone". Nor does the death the of one of those 90: rather than their heir inheriting their place, all they inherit is eligibility to stand for the now vacant position, and the right to vote in the ensuing by-election.4
The two exceptions are the Earl Marshal (who is, confusingly, a Duke rather than an Earl) and the Lord Great Chamberlain, who both retain seats in order to fulfil certain ceremonial functions. These two positions are themselves hereditary. The office of Earl Marshal is held by the Dukes of Norfolk (initially by the 6th Duke, and currently by the 18th) and, when the current holder dies, the role of Earl Marshal -- and therefore a seat in the House of Lords -- will pass to his heir, the new 19th Duke.
The office of Lord Great Chamberlain, meanwhile, is hereditary "in gross", and accordingly there are currently fifteen5 people, each "Joint Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain", only one of whom exercises the office at any one time. Importantly, the holder of the office changes either when the current holder dies (in which case it passes to their heir) or upon the death of the Monarch, in which case the office passes to a different "branch".
So yes, it is possible to sit in the House of Lords by heredity alone. And, if you're very lucky, it's even possible to do it without having to lose a parent.
1 All but the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
2 But that's a topic for another question.
3 Pun intended.
4 Assuming they're a member of the same political party, as the seats are actually apportioned by the party memberships of the hereditary peers.
5 By my very rough count.
answered Feb 1 at 19:33
owjburnhamowjburnham
791313
edited Feb 5 at 16:33
answered Feb 1 at 19:33
owjburnhamowjburnham
791313
answered Feb 1 at 19:33
owjburnhamowjburnham
791313
answered Feb 1 at 19:33
owjburnhamowjburnham
791313
791313
Thank you. So whenever a seat becomes vacant all the hereditary peers without seats are eligible to stand in an election, voted in by all the other hereditary peers?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 20:00
9
Then could the Earl Marshal perhaps be considered the "Duke of Earl"?
– T.E.D.
Feb 1 at 21:12
2
@Ben More or less, yes. I’m rusty on the details, but IIRC if for example an hereditary sitting as a Conservative dies (or retires?) then hereditaries registered as Conservatives vote in the by-election. Ditto a vacancy for seats held by other parties, and for the group of unaffiliated hereditary peers. But the by-elections are run by the House under its Standing Orders, not by the parties themselves.
– owjburnham
Feb 2 at 1:09
1
"And, if you're very lucky, it's even possible to do it without having to lose a parent." ... not really, you can only become a "Joint Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain" by your parent dying first.
– Paŭlo Ebermann
Feb 3 at 14:54
@PaŭloEbermann damn, you’re right.
– owjburnham
Feb 3 at 15:01
add a comment |
Thank you. So whenever a seat becomes vacant all the hereditary peers without seats are eligible to stand in an election, voted in by all the other hereditary peers?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 20:00
9
Then could the Earl Marshal perhaps be considered the "Duke of Earl"?
– T.E.D.
Feb 1 at 21:12
2
@Ben More or less, yes. I’m rusty on the details, but IIRC if for example an hereditary sitting as a Conservative dies (or retires?) then hereditaries registered as Conservatives vote in the by-election. Ditto a vacancy for seats held by other parties, and for the group of unaffiliated hereditary peers. But the by-elections are run by the House under its Standing Orders, not by the parties themselves.
– owjburnham
Feb 2 at 1:09
1
"And, if you're very lucky, it's even possible to do it without having to lose a parent." ... not really, you can only become a "Joint Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain" by your parent dying first.
– Paŭlo Ebermann
Feb 3 at 14:54
@PaŭloEbermann damn, you’re right.
– owjburnham
Feb 3 at 15:01
Thank you. So whenever a seat becomes vacant all the hereditary peers without seats are eligible to stand in an election, voted in by all the other hereditary peers?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 20:00
Thank you. So whenever a seat becomes vacant all the hereditary peers without seats are eligible to stand in an election, voted in by all the other hereditary peers?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 20:00
9
9
Then could the Earl Marshal perhaps be considered the "Duke of Earl"?
– T.E.D.
Feb 1 at 21:12
Then could the Earl Marshal perhaps be considered the "Duke of Earl"?
– T.E.D.
Feb 1 at 21:12
2
2
@Ben More or less, yes. I’m rusty on the details, but IIRC if for example an hereditary sitting as a Conservative dies (or retires?) then hereditaries registered as Conservatives vote in the by-election. Ditto a vacancy for seats held by other parties, and for the group of unaffiliated hereditary peers. But the by-elections are run by the House under its Standing Orders, not by the parties themselves.
– owjburnham
Feb 2 at 1:09
@Ben More or less, yes. I’m rusty on the details, but IIRC if for example an hereditary sitting as a Conservative dies (or retires?) then hereditaries registered as Conservatives vote in the by-election. Ditto a vacancy for seats held by other parties, and for the group of unaffiliated hereditary peers. But the by-elections are run by the House under its Standing Orders, not by the parties themselves.
– owjburnham
Feb 2 at 1:09
1
1
"And, if you're very lucky, it's even possible to do it without having to lose a parent." ... not really, you can only become a "Joint Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain" by your parent dying first.
– Paŭlo Ebermann
Feb 3 at 14:54
"And, if you're very lucky, it's even possible to do it without having to lose a parent." ... not really, you can only become a "Joint Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain" by your parent dying first.
– Paŭlo Ebermann
Feb 3 at 14:54
@PaŭloEbermann damn, you’re right.
– owjburnham
Feb 3 at 15:01
@PaŭloEbermann damn, you’re right.
– owjburnham
Feb 3 at 15:01
add a comment |
The House of Lords act 1999, which is what I assume you are referring to, specifies that there will be 92 hereditary seats in the House of Lords. The Lords were also given the opportunity to choose which 90 peers kept their hereditary seats.
Wikipedia has an article spelling out how many of these 90 elected seats were allocated to each party, and a list of all present and past members of those seats.
The seats themselves are not actually hereditary except for the two office holders (the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain) which are hereditary positions. Rather, the right to be elected is hereditary. Whenever a seat opens, any eligible peer can be elected into it by the other hereditary seat-holders.
answered Feb 1 at 18:51
BobsonBobson
14k13373
So the descendants of those sitting in those 92 seats will automatically get a seat in the Lords?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 19:00
1
@Ben No. For full details, seem my impending, overly-detailed answer.
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:05
@Ben - Good question. I'd missed a part of it. Answer updated. You may want to hold off on accepting for a while, in case someone else (like owjburnham) provides a better answer.
– Bobson
Feb 1 at 19:07
@Bobson You beat me to it in the edit, which answered the two things that my answer really added
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:34
add a comment |
The House of Lords act 1999, which is what I assume you are referring to, specifies that there will be 92 hereditary seats in the House of Lords. The Lords were also given the opportunity to choose which 90 peers kept their hereditary seats.
Wikipedia has an article spelling out how many of these 90 elected seats were allocated to each party, and a list of all present and past members of those seats.
The seats themselves are not actually hereditary except for the two office holders (the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain) which are hereditary positions. Rather, the right to be elected is hereditary. Whenever a seat opens, any eligible peer can be elected into it by the other hereditary seat-holders.
answered Feb 1 at 18:51
BobsonBobson
14k13373
So the descendants of those sitting in those 92 seats will automatically get a seat in the Lords?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 19:00
1
@Ben No. For full details, seem my impending, overly-detailed answer.
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:05
@Ben - Good question. I'd missed a part of it. Answer updated. You may want to hold off on accepting for a while, in case someone else (like owjburnham) provides a better answer.
– Bobson
Feb 1 at 19:07
@Bobson You beat me to it in the edit, which answered the two things that my answer really added
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:34
add a comment |
The House of Lords act 1999, which is what I assume you are referring to, specifies that there will be 92 hereditary seats in the House of Lords. The Lords were also given the opportunity to choose which 90 peers kept their hereditary seats.
Wikipedia has an article spelling out how many of these 90 elected seats were allocated to each party, and a list of all present and past members of those seats.
The seats themselves are not actually hereditary except for the two office holders (the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain) which are hereditary positions. Rather, the right to be elected is hereditary. Whenever a seat opens, any eligible peer can be elected into it by the other hereditary seat-holders.
answered Feb 1 at 18:51
BobsonBobson
14k13373
The House of Lords act 1999, which is what I assume you are referring to, specifies that there will be 92 hereditary seats in the House of Lords. The Lords were also given the opportunity to choose which 90 peers kept their hereditary seats.
Wikipedia has an article spelling out how many of these 90 elected seats were allocated to each party, and a list of all present and past members of those seats.
The seats themselves are not actually hereditary except for the two office holders (the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain) which are hereditary positions. Rather, the right to be elected is hereditary. Whenever a seat opens, any eligible peer can be elected into it by the other hereditary seat-holders.
answered Feb 1 at 18:51
BobsonBobson
14k13373
edited Feb 1 at 19:06
answered Feb 1 at 18:51
BobsonBobson
14k13373
answered Feb 1 at 18:51
BobsonBobson
14k13373
answered Feb 1 at 18:51
BobsonBobson
14k13373
14k13373
So the descendants of those sitting in those 92 seats will automatically get a seat in the Lords?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 19:00
1
@Ben No. For full details, seem my impending, overly-detailed answer.
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:05
@Ben - Good question. I'd missed a part of it. Answer updated. You may want to hold off on accepting for a while, in case someone else (like owjburnham) provides a better answer.
– Bobson
Feb 1 at 19:07
@Bobson You beat me to it in the edit, which answered the two things that my answer really added
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:34
add a comment |
So the descendants of those sitting in those 92 seats will automatically get a seat in the Lords?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 19:00
1
@Ben No. For full details, seem my impending, overly-detailed answer.
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:05
@Ben - Good question. I'd missed a part of it. Answer updated. You may want to hold off on accepting for a while, in case someone else (like owjburnham) provides a better answer.
– Bobson
Feb 1 at 19:07
@Bobson You beat me to it in the edit, which answered the two things that my answer really added
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:34
So the descendants of those sitting in those 92 seats will automatically get a seat in the Lords?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 19:00
So the descendants of those sitting in those 92 seats will automatically get a seat in the Lords?
– Ben
Feb 1 at 19:00
1
1
@Ben No. For full details, seem my impending, overly-detailed answer.
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:05
@Ben No. For full details, seem my impending, overly-detailed answer.
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:05
@Ben - Good question. I'd missed a part of it. Answer updated. You may want to hold off on accepting for a while, in case someone else (like owjburnham) provides a better answer.
– Bobson
Feb 1 at 19:07
@Ben - Good question. I'd missed a part of it. Answer updated. You may want to hold off on accepting for a while, in case someone else (like owjburnham) provides a better answer.
– Bobson
Feb 1 at 19:07
@Bobson You beat me to it in the edit, which answered the two things that my answer really added
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:34
@Bobson You beat me to it in the edit, which answered the two things that my answer really added
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 19:34
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38478%2fpost-1999-will-anyone-be-entitled-to-sit-in-the-house-of-lords-by-heredity-alone%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
By “heredity alone” do you mean to exclude by-elections among the hereditary peers?
– owjburnham
Feb 1 at 17:59
"Post 1999" seems to go without saying... :D
– user22277
Feb 5 at 17:26