The previous Duke of Devonshire in his study at Chatsworth (Photo: Andrew Crowley)
The Duke was responding to Labour’s plans to eliminate the remaining 90 hereditary peers before the next General Election. If Labour manages to get the proposal through Parliament in the next few weeks, the Duke has promised to drop his title. “Because then it would be clear-cut what the people wanted, and it would be confusing to maintain hereditary titles,” he says. “So, finish that, go back to being called Cavendish.”
Yes, in a manner of speaking, the Duke is right, but as Toby Young writes, ironically under Labour, Britain is more class-bound than ever.
Personally, I'd rather be the proprietor, or a member, of Pratt's than a Duke, any day. Good for him.
ReplyDeleteThe real power is the occult theocracy behind the BIS in Basle, Switzerland. It has reached its zenith; thankfully its days are numbered.
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about British political parties, being an Australian, but I still don't think this is a good idea... it seems like something our own Labor Party would do, which I actually support - somewhat (they were traditionally monarchist; not so much any more). Being a hereditary peer shouldn't make one less competent.
ReplyDeleteAs an American of English origins, it is sad to see a political system dump its heritage in the dust bin. The commonwealth of the last 300 years has launched many nations into the modern age, and has been a force for good. It seems that keeping a bit of tradition helps a nation go forward with a more clear moral compass.
ReplyDeleteSeems like a good enough man. I'd rather be governed by his like than most of the politicians I've met.
ReplyDeleteThat study is fantastic.
ReplyDeleteTHERE are two reasons why the Hereditary Peers must be removed. One is Ideological. We live in the Age of Democracy, and all of our Educated elites and Politicians realise that, in the 21st Century, its unimaginable that peopel shoudl hold a position in Giovernment that is not base dupon the will of the people. They beleive that everythign must be Democratic. Perhaps the Aristocracy use to work, but tis utdated, and is ot a fit for our modern tmes, in which we udnerstand all power is vested in the people.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the Second Reason is because it opens the Lords up to Politicians to get into office by either Favouratism or elections. This way, they themselves may take over both houses of Parliment.
All in the name of Progrss, of course.
I mean, Democracy has broguth us so much. Freedom, Prosperity, and of course unity.
Why, look how well people of differing political parties get along! Not to mention how everyone rallies behind the elected politicians as the will of the people. Its not like there are massive protests by those who loose.
Just look how Barack Obama is Universlaly Supported here in the States.
And lets nto forget the Honesty of the proccess. Peopel in America hoped for Scott Brown to win to block Obamas Agenda. A week later he voted for Obamas Job Bill. See how well he worke dout?
I'm sure its the same in Australia.
Democracy is nohtign as advertised. Naitosn that formerly saw themselve as British now understand themselves as compleltey alien to British Culture, even Canada. People are always at each othes throats. Politicians lie to get into office, and people vote for their interests NOW and on their immediate passions, only to be dissapointed as the Politician lied ot them and was backed by Special Interests he is beholden to, and as for Freedom, the Agenda of the Party requires overturning the agenda of the other which means endless legislation to restructure all of society.
Aristocrats have a Reputation for complete control, but they seldom really were that abusive in History. Meanwhile, elected politicians don't care abut the common good, they care about their Utopian visions, and as a result we are told how to think and what to do far more often.
Demcoracy is a great lie, but one thats won out thusfar.
And heaven forbid we let these 90 Hereditaey Peers remain!
Its an affront to our new god Democracy.
Does this mean Labour is getting rid of the rest of the hereditary lords to install more of their own people? That sounds...unconstitutional. It's almost like the Labour party wants a lack of checks and balances. Now how could that be? Hmmmm. Hmmm....
ReplyDeleteOf course they want rid of them, Brown has fast tracked it.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course they want a lack of Checks and balances. They just want the appearance of a system in which "The Will Of The People" reigns supreme, by which they really mean the will of their political party. It was never about really advancing society or improving anything, its all about them pushing an ideology and them getting more power in the process.
That said, Britain doesn't have a Written Constitution. Many of the politicians complain, and on this I agree there needs to be one. But they wont actually try to write one until after all the Reforms are made which will likely even reduce the Powers of the Crown, or possibly remove them outright. Then they'll put up a Written Constitution to block people form changing it back.
Leadership is dead, not permitted on the New World Odour landscape. Role-modeling ideals is dead, consigned to the Trash heap of old movies. Spreading the wealth around to creative workers is dead; now what is PC is all that gets the nod. I feel so sorry for this new generation who believes they know something about Monarchy because they've heard a lot of BS and Official fol-de-rol about it. I haven't met a Monarchist yet who knows WHY the Stone of Scone is important to Britain or on what legal basis Edward VIII was not only stripped of his title but stripped of all his personal real property rights and his children's inheritance rights, as an individual: without having done any harm, without charges against him, without trial, without a jury. Ignorance is bliss, I gues.
ReplyDeleteIf the Russian aristocracy survived the Revolution, albeit in a debased state in some (many) cases, I am sure the aristocracy of Great Britain can weather this.
ReplyDeleteBut they don't do anything to LEAD? Why should they weather anything? Everything they do is with and about ELITES [except when they're condescending]. That's not leadership.
ReplyDeleteI think the Crown died when Edward VIII got kicked out (not for any civil or felonious crime or trial or charges or harm) but for getting married to a woman his Father set him up with, who had been an MI-5 agent in the 1920's with Hitler--just to take Edward off the Throne permanently. It was a set-up; and the Crown hasn't been the same since. In fact, the Stone of Scone disappeared in 1950, and it never was returned (all 458 pounds of it) intact. It's OVER.
ReplyDeleteIn that most Fascist of decades, Edward was not Fascist enough (being a confirmed Anglican) to satisfy his father's ambitions. But we all knew this. George V had to have a 2nd coronation in India. He had a feud with two of his closest 1st cousins and got them dethroned and one of them slaughtered. He was not a nice guy, and Edward was not his idea of a suitable King.
ReplyDeleteThis is amazing.
ReplyDeleteNobody is present here. Nobody is serious here.
What a hoot!
I declare before you that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of the great Imperial Commonwealth to which we all belong. - Princess Elizabeth, 1947
This didn't matter because she was NEVER Queen.
The Stone of Scone was GONE when she was crowned.
Ms Cragg, the stone is largely irrelevent beyond it being a rather fascinating story. That the stone at Westminster was a fake made in 1950, 1928, 1296 or whenever has no bearing on the legitimacy of Her Majesty's reign. Even our medievall antecedents who put so much stock in sacred stones of kingship recognised that posession was key to legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteHonestly I thought the monarchy and the royals had no power over the government in Britain. Why is it such a big deal if they keep their titles? They don't need to hold a seat in Parliament anymore -- hereditary titles should carry on, but the authority they have over the people really should not. I do not have a back round in the British system of Politics, that is one thing I hope to learn this summer at school in London, but if the way they put together a Parliament is by electing people to the system, they should continue that.
ReplyDeleteBut also remember that other countries have kept their monarchy and they are only there to appear at functions and to help the people, which is what I thought the British Monarchy did these days anyway.
Traditionally I would like to see the monarchy/peerage live on because of the history behind it. So much has been put in to it -- if nothing it should be preserved purely for the people -- royalty is still interesting to some people; at least the reign of Elizabeth II is to me. After her reign, though, I don't think I will be as excited after what has happened in the past few decades with her children. I just don't see the monarchy/royals as being as interesting once Charles becomes "King." Sorry. I'm old school and I have old school values and morals; and I just don't approve of some of the decisions that the "future monarchs" are making these days.
Its purpose of Leading the people in principles is long since lost.
ReplyDeleteThe Church of England is dead. The Defender of the Faith has abandoned the struggle to keep civil life, civil. It's all about appearances now. What a travesty!
ReplyDeleteLord Best, what do you think of the concepts of "Covenant", "Contract," and "Promise"?
ReplyDeleteAre these meaningless and only the physical possession of property has ANY value?
EEWC