Peter Mandelson has resigned his seat in the House of Lords, yet retains his title. Debrett's Peerage expert Hugo Strachwitz explains why the removal of a title is not quite as simple as just retiring from the House of Lords and runs through the options that are open to the Government.
Why does retirement, resignation or suspension from the House of Lords not deprive someone of their peerage or title?
It is a question that has resurfaced repeatedly in recent years, usually prompted by controversy, proposed reforms, or a general sense that the rules governing titles and honours are more flexible than they really are.
In short, retirement, resignation or suspension from the House of Lords does not deprive someone of their peerage title.
In the case of Life Peerages—those conferred for an individual’s lifetime rather than inherited from a family member—the peerage grants the right to be summoned to the House of Lords, but it is not extinguished if that right ceases.
There are several ways in which a peer may be prevented from attending the House of Lords. A peer may take a formal Leave of Absence, may be temporarily suspended (usually for breaches of parliamentary standards), or may be disqualified for persistent non-attendance.
Peers may also retire or resign from the House altogether, a relatively recent innovation dating from the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. In all these circumstances, the individual ceases to be a member of the House of Lords but retains their title, along with the associated privilege of being styled The Right Honourable and addressed as Lord or Lady X. This distinction between membership of the House and possession of a title can be surprising, but it is fundamental.
Depriving a peer of their peerage—and therefore of their title—is a far more complex constitutional problem.
When peerages were purely hereditary, removal was an extreme sanction. Peers were not merely royal favourites or honoured politicians, but powerful regional magnates whose allegiance could shift with each reign. As Parliament emerged as the dominant legislative authority in England, and later Great Britain, the Monarch’s ability to create and remove peerages at will came to be seen as something requiring restraint.
One route was the Bill of Attainder. Parliament could pass legislation declaring a (usually treasonous) peer guilty, depriving them not only of their title but also of their property and civil rights, and often their life. While swift, this mechanism was inherently vulnerable to political abuse. The last such Bill was proposed—though not enacted—in 1820.
A more limited alternative was the use of a specific Act of Parliament to deprive named individuals of their peerages. This approach was adopted at the end of the Great War, most notably through the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, to remove the peerages of those serving in the armed forces of Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary. Even then, it affected only four individuals, all holders of hereditary peerages.
At present, there is no mechanism by which a life peer may disclaim, surrender or return their peerage title. Nor does the Monarch possess a general power to remove a life peerage once conferred, in the way other honours may be withdrawn. Parliament is currently considering proposals that would change this position, either by allowing voluntary disclaimer or by empowering the Monarch to deprive a life peerage in defined circumstances. Until such reforms are enacted, however, a life peer who leaves the House of Lords remains, in law and in style, a peer.
Image Credit: World Economic Forum on Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Debrett’s is the recognised authority on the British peerage. For over 250 years we have chronicled the nation’s titled families. Subscribe now for £9.99 a month or £99 annually to access our renowned Peerage database - the definitive record of the aristocracy.
