Eldest sons of disclaimed peers

Hello. Happy New Year.
The point is now moot, but had, say, and purely for example, the Earl
of Bradford chosen to disclaim his title during the time that it was
possible, would his eldest son have retained the courtesy title of Lord
Newport, since said title would also have been disclaimed? And had his

Candide...

who

then ex-lordship thereafter sired a daughter, would she have been a Lady
or simply Miss? Any daughters born before the renunciation

Candide...

any

Peter Tilman...

Because quite a few peers who have disclaimed have done so out of political
necessity (the need to stay in the Commons to continue their political

=?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=...

careers) rather than any dislike for the notion of being a hereditary peer,
and so would presumably have had no objection to being promoted in the
peerage once that career was over. (Sir Alec Douglas-Home, for instance,
would, I'd imagine, not have objected to being created Marquess or Duke of
Home after his premiership.)

Candide...

Well there was a time when duty took precedence over the desire to get
on and or personal preference. As such disclaiming a peerage could be
seen as turning one's back on crown and country. Yes, there is something
to be said for serving in government, but if that was not one's lot in
life.....

=?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=...

No. (OTOH, his premiership was hardly distinguished enough to merit a
de novo Earldom at the time, and certainly not a Marquessate.) But
maybe this would have been considered cheating - not as far as the
disclaiming peer is concerned, but for his heirs.

I mean - there would have been precious little chance in 1963 for the
14th Earl of Home to be created the first Marquess of Home, _without_
disclaiming his peerage and becoming Prime Minister (and being a more
unmitigated success about it, and for a longer time, than he actually
was, of course). This might have been felt in some way as benefiting
from your own crime. If the Life Peerage Act had allowed other ranks
for life peers than Baron, he could have been made the Earl Home of
Hirshel when he quit the HoC, but this wasn't an option.

Contrived, but the best I can come up with.

Jan B=F6hme

It could create rather strange situations, as well: two brothers, sons of

Candide...

brothers,

the 6th Baron Somewhere, become notable politicians, and are eventually
considered worthy of Earldoms. The younger is created Earl of Elsewhere, but
the elder inherited and disclaimed the Barony of Somewhere 15 years ago
(before the HoL Act, when such an act was necessary), and so has to be
content with a life peerage. Why should such a situation exist? (It's rather
unfair on the elder son's son, for a start.) It's a completely unnecessary
provision, as far as I can see, which exists only to punish those put in the
situation of having a peerage thrust upon them by fate at an inopportune
moment.

Candide...

Isn't that argument sort of irrelevant? Aren't the vast number of former
politicians granted life peerages, save for a few major exceptions?

Peter Tilman...

They are now, but I'm trying to find the reason this provision was felt
necessary in 1963, when that wasn't nearly so much the case. Someone must
have thought it important enough to include it, but I don't see why.

Candide...

Well there could have been the feeling that being a peer of the realm is
rather extraordinary and certainly not something everyone has a chance
to receive, no matter how worthy. Therefore if one has had such a
privilege, and for whatever reason turned it down, it hardly seems fair
to be allowed "back into the fold" as it were. The peerage is supposed
to be made up of a small number of exclusive persons. It is kept this
way by virtue of only one member of a family becoming noble at a time
(the heir). Given modern health care, lifespan, and reproductive
technology, it is not outside the realm of possibility for peer to
renounce his peerage at twenty, pursue a career in government until he
is sixty; then marry and sire children. If former peers of the realm
practiced this on a large scale, and were granted peerages of the realm
upon leaving government, one would vastly inflate the ranks of
hereditary peers. Even if said peer had children during his youth, but
after renouncing his peerage, the effect would be the same.

Candide...

Have you been following this discussion?

If the a peer has an heir and he gives up his peerage that does not
affect the heir, but only the peer and his spouse. The peerage still
exists, but only vacant until the heir inherits. Therefore, if the
former peer is granted another peerage it does indeed create an
additional peer of the realm. More so if the elder peer has produced
since giving up his peerage, for he will then have potential heirs, thus
another noble family has been created.

Candide--

"Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level. It's
cheaper."
Quentin Crisp 1908 - 1999
_+_+_+_+_+_+__+_+_+_+_

would have of course retained the style.