Abolishing the hereditary peers? Then let's dump the titles, as well
And so it is with the removal of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords. The Lords this week finished the fifth and final committee day of the Hereditary Peers Bill, which abolishes the hereditary principle in the Upper House.
I asked the Duke of Wellington when I met him the other day if he was going to miss it. 'Terribly', he said. 'It has been a great privilege to serve for the last 10 years. I shall miss it very much.' I suggested that at least now he would be able to vote in general elections (peers aren't allowed to). 'A consolation', he admitted.
Personally I think that the Lords will be a less fun, less representative and possibly less civil place without the Duke and his peers.
But once they're gone, these real peers, these dukes, earls and barons, the really big question is, why on earth should any of the remaining members of the Upper House be called lords at all?
The House of Lords gets its name from its members. Formerly if you inherited an earldom, it meant you had to turn up for the State Opening of Parliament and do your bit in the chamber.
The peerage carried the job with it. Now that the link between the upper chamber and the hereditary peerage has been cut, there is no reason whatsoever why MUHs – members of the Upper House – should have a title.
Given that the Government has decided it's against all the flummery of hereditary peerages, they should do away with titles altogether. No more scarlet and ermine for the new members, then. Instead the intake can be introduced as 'The Honourable Stakeholder' if we want to retain civility.
The Earl of Devon, one of the doomed hereditaries, has introduced explosive amendments to the Bill (including incendiary changes to bring gender equality into the inheritance of peerages, which is, I think, a rubbish idea).
But the most interesting one asks for a 'Review of and consultation on appropriateness of name of House'. So, 'The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report based on a public consultation on the implications of the provisions in this Act for the appropriateness of the name of the House of Lords.'
In other words, why have a House of Lords if there are no proper hereditary peers in it? The dignity of being a member of the Second Chamber would have to be enough.
Let's examine what that would actually look like in practice. The wives of the male members wouldn't be called Lady any more; the member himself or herself wouldn't have quite the same pull booking a restaurant and travelling abroad, and Americans wouldn't get quite as excited.
On the bright side, they would still get £361 plus travel expenses for every day they turn up, enough to sort out the utility bills. And they would still have a lovely subsidised restaurant and access to umpteen post offices within Parliament, which is more than the rest of us. I say the Government should fully back the amendment. If they are Roundhead enough to get rid of the hereditaries, let them get rid of the titles and ermine as well.
The thing is, they might find far fewer takers for the Upper Chamber without all of the regal pomp and circumstance.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Youngkin praises Virginia's economy, dismissing Democrats' concerns over Medicaid and job cuts
RICHMOND, Va. -- Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin said Thursday that Virginia's economy is thriving after ending its fiscal year with high revenues, a characterization Democrats criticized as rose-colored in light of budgetary decisions in neighboring Washington, D.C. In a presentation to the state's money committees, Youngkin and Virginia's secretary of finance said revenues for the fiscal year resulted in a $572 million surplus and a $4.7 billion rainy-day fund. Economic output in the state grew by about 1 percent higher than initially forecast, officials said. 'The strength and success we see today is no accident. It is the result of very intentional decisions made by all of us — intentional decisions to lift up opportunity in the Commonwealth of Virginia,' Youngkin said in his speech to lawmakers. 'And these decisions are yielding dividends. They're enabling us to compete and to win.' Democratic lawmakers were quick to push back, particularly in light of looming Medicaid work requirements for some adults after Congress passed a reconciliation bill last month. Youngkin repeatedly said Medicaid will not be taken away from Virginians, and Secretary of Finance Stephen Cummings added that hospitals will be able to absorb any additional costs from federal cuts to Medicaid. Senate Democratic Majority Leader Scott Surovell cited an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office this year estimating that roughly 11 million Americans will lose access to Medicaid. 'The governor stood up here and said a million times, repeatedly, that nobody is coming to throw out Medicaid,' Surovell said. He added that the CBO, which 'America relies upon to tell us the answers to these things, tells us that millions of Americans are going to lose their Medicaid.' Democrats also said the governor is not fully acknowledging that the White House's reshaping of the federal workforce will continue to impact the state's economy. The job losses that factored into Youngkin's assessment did not include federal workers who took buyouts and are still receiving payments until later this year, Cummings said. But Republican House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore praised Youngkin's presentation, calling it 'the kind of news every Virginian should cheer.' 'It happened because Republicans have kept a steady hand on the wheel,' Kilgore said. ___
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Texas judge rules that Alex Jones' Infowars will be put up for sale once again
Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones faced another setback in court as a Texas district judge ruled that his Infowars platform could be put up for sale again. The decision follows a 2024 ruling to halt an earlier sale due to concerns about the auction process. Judge Maya Guerra Gamble ruled on Wednesday, Aug. 13, that Infowars' parent company, Free Speech Systems, was to be placed in the hands of a court-appointed receiver and that the company's assets would be used to pay the $1.3 billion in legal judgments. In 2022, the courts ruled that Jones defamed the families of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, in which six adults and 20 children were killed. He made repeated false claims that the massacre was a 'hoax' staged as part of a government plot to confiscate guns from Americans. Gamble's order paves the way for The Onion to try yet again to purchase Infowars and its assets. In December 2024, the satirical news site initially won the court-ordered auction for Infowars, but a U.S. bankruptcy judge blocked the sale, stating that the bankruptcy auction did not result in the best possible the court's latest ruling, The Onion's CEO Ben Collins posted on the social media platform Bluesky on Wednesday, Aug. 13, 'We're working on it. That's all I can say for now.' Reuters and USA TODAY's Jeanine Santucci contributed to this report. Fernando Cervantes Jr. is a trending news reporter for USA TODAY. Reach him at and follow him on X @fern_cerv_.
Buzz Feed
2 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
Jillian Michaels Has Meltdown During CNN Slavery Talk
Biggest Loser coach and Donald Trump supporter Jillian Michaels had a stunning meltdown Wednesday night while defending white people during a fiery debate about the president's efforts to rewrite US history. Michaels appeared on a CNN NewsNight panel with conservative commentator Scott Jennings, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky, and legal analyst Elie Honig to discuss Trump's pick for Kennedy Center honoree. The conversation took a sharp turn when Roginsky, discussing changes Trump has spearheaded at the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian Institution, accused the president of 'trying to change culture' and revise history so it does not offend his MAGA base. 'Can you address some of those things in there? Because have you looked at some of the things in there?' Michaels asked, referring to historical displays at the Smithsonian Institution. 'Yeah. Yes, slavery was a bad thing we should talk about,' Roginsky said before Michaels interrupted. 'He's not whitewashing slavery,' the fitness guru argued. 'And you cannot tie imperialism and racism and slavery to just one race, which is pretty much what every single exhibit does.' Michaels: You cannot tie imperialism and racism and slavery to just one race, which is pretty much what every single exhibit does… Only less than 2% of white Americans own slaves. You realize that slavery is thousands of years old? Phillip: I'm very surprised you are trying to… — Acyn (@Acyn) August 14, 2025 @Acyn/ CNN / Via The CNN panel erupted in cross-talk, and Michaels turned to Torres and asked, 'Do you realize that only less than 2% of white Americans owned slaves?' citing a contested figure. 'But it was a system of white supremacy,' Torres responded. As people continued to talk over each other, Michaels added that slavery is thousands of years old, but was interrupted by a stunned Phillip, who said she was 'surprised' that her guest was 'trying to litigate who was the beneficiary of slavery.' 'In the context of American history, what are you saying is incorrect by saying it was white people oppressing Black people?' Phillip asked. 'Every single thing is like, oh, no, no, no, this is all because 'white people bad,' and that's just not the truth,' Michaels said. Michaels then characterized a Smithsonian exhibit as claiming that people 'migrated from Cuba because 'white people bad,'' before accusing Roginsky of not knowing what's in the museum. But the exhibit Michaels called out didn't actually appear to make that argument. Later that night, she posted a photo of an exhibit that names US foreign policy as a contributor to political instability in Cuba and the Dominican Republic. The pictured exhibit did not expressly mention white people at all, except to note that some of the first Cubans to immigrate to the US were 'wealthy White Cubans.' Ok... so for anyone watching me on @CNN tonight battling it out on Abby Phillip's show... this is one of the Smithsonian exhibits I was referencing. Trump is not trying to "erase slavery" by suggesting some of the instillations there are inaccurate and bias. Notice how it omits… — Jillian Michaels (@JillianMichaels) August 14, 2025 @jillianmichaels / Via During her appearance on CNN, the fitness influencer also griped about other elements of the Smithsonian.'Do you know that when you walk in the front door, the first thing you see is the gay flag?' asked Michaels, who is married to a woman. She then started to criticize an exhibit that touches on gender testing in sports before Phillip interjected, 'We don't have time to litigate all of this.' CNN / Via 'Of course we don't, because then you're going to lose the argument, and if everything is racialized, just like you're trying to do to me now,' Michaels told Phillip. 'Excuse me? Jillian, you brought up race,' Phillip said. 'This was a conversation about the arts, and you brought up race.' — Acyn (@Acyn) August 14, 2025 @Acyn/ CNN / Via
