Peers tend to have things on their coats of arms that most people dont, such as supporters, etc. If a peer with such things on their coat of arms ceases to be a peer, renunciation shortly after succeeding, doing a Taafe, or whatever, does he get to keep the coat of arms as it is, or is it withdrawn and/or redone without the extra goodies?
apologies, my quotation, apostrophe, plus, minus, hyphen and several other keys are not working.
On 5/7/08 05:18, in article 16717-486EF60F-...@storefull-3151.bay.webtv.net,
"carst...@webtv.net" <carst...@webtv.net> wrote: > Peers tend to have things on their coats of arms that most people dont, > such as supporters, etc. If a peer with such things on their coat of > arms ceases to be a peer, > renunciation shortly after succeeding, doing a Taafe, or whatever, does > he get to keep the coat of arms as it is, or is it withdrawn and/or > redone without the extra goodies?
> apologies, my quotation, apostrophe, plus, minus, hyphen and several > other keys are not working.
Anthony Wedgwood Benn, aka Viscount Stansgate, has never used his title and ISTR that while he fought for and succeeded, in getting the right to renounce the title for himself and call himself Mr Benn and remain an MP, he tried also to renounce it in perpetuity and bring such a possibility into law and there he failed. I'm not sure my memory is right on that but it's something that lingers in the back of my mind. IF his male heir, Stephen Benn, chooses to call himself Mr Benn for the rest of his life, it does not prevent *his* son and heirs from becoming Viscount Stansgate in their turn. Surely this means that nothing changes other than the peer is known as Mr from personal choice. -- Sacha
> On 5/7/08 05:18, in article 16717-486EF60F-...@storefull-3151.bay.webtv.net,
> "carst...@webtv.net" <carst...@webtv.net> wrote: > > Peers tend to have things on their coats of arms that most people dont, > > such as supporters, etc. If a peer with such things on their coat of > > arms ceases to be a peer, > > renunciation shortly after succeeding, doing a Taafe, or whatever, does > > he get to keep the coat of arms as it is, or is it withdrawn and/or > > redone without the extra goodies?
> > apologies, my quotation, apostrophe, plus, minus, hyphen and several > > other keys are not working.
> Anthony Wedgwood Benn, aka Viscount Stansgate, has never used his title and > ISTR that while he fought for and succeeded, in getting the right to > renounce the title for himself and call himself Mr Benn and remain an MP, he > tried also to renounce it in perpetuity and bring such a possibility into > law and there he failed. I'm not sure my memory is right on that but it's > something that lingers in the back of my mind. > IF his male heir, Stephen Benn, chooses to call himself Mr Benn for the rest > of his life, it does not prevent *his* son and heirs from becoming Viscount > Stansgate in their turn. Surely this means that nothing changes other than > the peer is known as Mr from personal choice. > -- > Sacha
I haven't got the relevent books handy where I am at the moment, but it may be an idea to check on Alec Douglas-Home's Coat of Arms in his various different incarnations: coronets are a good indication of what happens to individuals when their rank changes.
1. The Hon Alec Douglas-Home 2. Viscount Dunglass 3. Earl of Home (Coronet, 8 pearls raised on points, with strawberry leaves between the points) 4. Sir Alec Douglas-Home Bt 5. Lord Home of the Hirsel (Coronet, 6 pearls)
That said, I am inclined to agree with Sacha, I don't think that supporters are removed if someone disclaims a peerage, and yes, Benn's grandson is perfectly entitled to claim the viscouncy.
<rick.lich...@virgin.net> wrote: > On 5 Jul, 13:57, Sacha <sa...@nowhere.myzen.co.uk> wrote: >> On 5/7/08 05:18, in article 16717-486EF60F-...@storefull-3151.bay.webtv.net,
>> "carst...@webtv.net" <carst...@webtv.net> wrote: >>> Peers tend to have things on their coats of arms that most people dont, >>> such as supporters, etc. If a peer with such things on their coat of >>> arms ceases to be a peer, >>> renunciation shortly after succeeding, doing a Taafe, or whatever, does >>> he get to keep the coat of arms as it is, or is it withdrawn and/or >>> redone without the extra goodies?
>>> apologies, my quotation, apostrophe, plus, minus, hyphen and several >>> other keys are not working.
>> Anthony Wedgwood Benn, aka Viscount Stansgate, has never used his title and >> ISTR that while he fought for and succeeded, in getting the right to >> renounce the title for himself and call himself Mr Benn and remain an MP, he >> tried also to renounce it in perpetuity and bring such a possibility into >> law and there he failed. I'm not sure my memory is right on that but it's >> something that lingers in the back of my mind. >> IF his male heir, Stephen Benn, chooses to call himself Mr Benn for the rest >> of his life, it does not prevent *his* son and heirs from becoming Viscount >> Stansgate in their turn. Surely this means that nothing changes other than >> the peer is known as Mr from personal choice. >> -- >> Sacha
> I haven't got the relevent books handy where I am at the moment, but > it may be an idea to check on Alec Douglas-Home's Coat of Arms in his > various different incarnations: coronets are a good indication of what > happens to individuals when their rank changes.
> 1. The Hon Alec Douglas-Home > 2. Viscount Dunglass > 3. Earl of Home (Coronet, 8 pearls raised on points, with strawberry > leaves between the points) > 4. Sir Alec Douglas-Home Bt > 5. Lord Home of the Hirsel (Coronet, 6 pearls)
> That said, I am inclined to agree with Sacha, I don't think that > supporters are removed if someone disclaims a peerage, and yes, Benn's > grandson is perfectly entitled to claim the viscouncy.
> Richard Lichten
Lord Stansgate's rank hasn't changed though. It is simply that he has chosen not to use it, surely? He hasn't lost it and could be addressed as Viscount Stansgate again tomorrow and quite legitimately? Indeed, Tony Benn's oldest son may choose to use the title, though it seems unlikely that he will. Hilary Benn is very unpopular today re the badger cull BTW . -- Sacha
> Lord Stansgate's rank hasn't changed though. It is simply that he has > chosen not to use it, surely? He hasn't lost it and could be addressed as > Viscount Stansgate again tomorrow and quite legitimately? > Indeed, Tony Benn's oldest son may choose to use the title, though it > seems > unlikely that he will. Hilary Benn is very unpopular today re the badger > cull BTW . > --
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&tit... Peerage Act 1963 - Section 3. "Effects of disclaimer. - (1) The disclaimer of a peerage by any person under this Act shall be irrevocable and shall operate, from the date on which the instrument of disclaimer is delivered,- (a) to divest that person (and, if he is married, his wife) of all right or interest to or in the peerage, and all titles, rights, offices, privileges and precedence attaching thereto; and (b) to relieve him of all obligations and disabilities F1 . . . arising therefrom," -- "Write nothing with thy hand but that which thou wilt be pleased to see at the resurrection" Prayer at the end of a Coptic-Arabic manuscript of the gospels
>On 5/7/08 21:45, in article >89dc9ad4-aacc-4b30-a4e7-41ee9e311...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, "Turenne" ><rick.lich...@virgin.net> wrote:
>> On 5 Jul, 13:57, Sacha <sa...@nowhere.myzen.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 5/7/08 05:18, in article 16717-486EF60F-...@storefull-3151.bay.webtv.net,
>>> "carst...@webtv.net" <carst...@webtv.net> wrote: >>>> Peers tend to have things on their coats of arms that most people dont, >>>> such as supporters, etc. If a peer with such things on their coat of >>>> arms ceases to be a peer, >>>> renunciation shortly after succeeding, doing a Taafe, or whatever, does >>>> he get to keep the coat of arms as it is, or is it withdrawn and/or >>>> redone without the extra goodies?
>>>> apologies, my quotation, apostrophe, plus, minus, hyphen and several >>>> other keys are not working.
>>> Anthony Wedgwood Benn, aka Viscount Stansgate, has never used his title and >>> ISTR that while he fought for and succeeded, in getting the right to >>> renounce the title for himself and call himself Mr Benn and remain an MP, he >>> tried also to renounce it in perpetuity and bring such a possibility into >>> law and there he failed. I'm not sure my memory is right on that but it's >>> something that lingers in the back of my mind. >>> IF his male heir, Stephen Benn, chooses to call himself Mr Benn for the rest >>> of his life, it does not prevent *his* son and heirs from becoming Viscount >>> Stansgate in their turn. Surely this means that nothing changes other than >>> the peer is known as Mr from personal choice. >>> -- >>> Sacha
>> I haven't got the relevent books handy where I am at the moment, but >> it may be an idea to check on Alec Douglas-Home's Coat of Arms in his >> various different incarnations: coronets are a good indication of what >> happens to individuals when their rank changes.
>> 1. The Hon Alec Douglas-Home >> 2. Viscount Dunglass >> 3. Earl of Home (Coronet, 8 pearls raised on points, with strawberry >> leaves between the points) >> 4. Sir Alec Douglas-Home Bt >> 5. Lord Home of the Hirsel (Coronet, 6 pearls)
>> That said, I am inclined to agree with Sacha, I don't think that >> supporters are removed if someone disclaims a peerage, and yes, Benn's >> grandson is perfectly entitled to claim the viscouncy.
>Lord Stansgate's rank hasn't changed though. It is simply that he has >chosen not to use it, surely? He hasn't lost it and could be addressed as >Viscount Stansgate again tomorrow and quite legitimately? >Indeed, Tony Benn's oldest son may choose to use the title, though it seems >unlikely that he will. Hilary Benn is very unpopular today re the badger >cull BTW .
No, this is wrong. The peerage has ceased to exist until Tony Benn dies; he cannot, short of further legislation, ever be Viscount Stansgate again. On his death, the effect of the disclaimer is exhausted, and his heir succeeds to the title as if it had never occurred. Disclaimer is for life; no question of "choosing" not to use the title arises. The operative provision is quite simple:
"The disclaimer of a peerage by any person under this Act shall be irrevocable and shall operate ... to divest that person (and, if he is married, his wife) of all right or interest to or in the peerage, and all titles, rights, offices, privileges and precedence attaching thereto and to relieve him of all obligations and disabilities arising therefrom, but shall not accelerate the succession to that peerage nor affect its devolution on his death." (Peerage Act 1963, s.3)
Clearly his "rank" has changed, since he loses the precedence which goes with the peerage.
The most natural interpretation of this provision seems to be that it deprives the disclaiming peer of the "privilege" of having supporters to his arms, but I don't know what the actual practice of the CoA has been in such cases. I agree that Lord Home's is the obvious case to check, if anybody is in a position to do that.
-- Don Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
>> On 5/7/08 21:45, in article >> 89dc9ad4-aacc-4b30-a4e7-41ee9e311...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, "Turenne" >> <rick.lich...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>> On 5 Jul, 13:57, Sacha <sa...@nowhere.myzen.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On 5/7/08 05:18, in article >>>> 16717-486EF60F-...@storefull-3151.bay.webtv.net,
>>>> "carst...@webtv.net" <carst...@webtv.net> wrote: >>>>> Peers tend to have things on their coats of arms that most people dont, >>>>> such as supporters, etc. If a peer with such things on their coat of >>>>> arms ceases to be a peer, >>>>> renunciation shortly after succeeding, doing a Taafe, or whatever, does >>>>> he get to keep the coat of arms as it is, or is it withdrawn and/or >>>>> redone without the extra goodies?
>>>>> apologies, my quotation, apostrophe, plus, minus, hyphen and several >>>>> other keys are not working.
>>>> Anthony Wedgwood Benn, aka Viscount Stansgate, has never used his title and >>>> ISTR that while he fought for and succeeded, in getting the right to >>>> renounce the title for himself and call himself Mr Benn and remain an MP, >>>> he >>>> tried also to renounce it in perpetuity and bring such a possibility into >>>> law and there he failed. I'm not sure my memory is right on that but it's >>>> something that lingers in the back of my mind. >>>> IF his male heir, Stephen Benn, chooses to call himself Mr Benn for the >>>> rest >>>> of his life, it does not prevent *his* son and heirs from becoming Viscount >>>> Stansgate in their turn. Surely this means that nothing changes other than >>>> the peer is known as Mr from personal choice. >>>> -- >>>> Sacha
>>> I haven't got the relevent books handy where I am at the moment, but >>> it may be an idea to check on Alec Douglas-Home's Coat of Arms in his >>> various different incarnations: coronets are a good indication of what >>> happens to individuals when their rank changes.
>>> 1. The Hon Alec Douglas-Home >>> 2. Viscount Dunglass >>> 3. Earl of Home (Coronet, 8 pearls raised on points, with strawberry >>> leaves between the points) >>> 4. Sir Alec Douglas-Home Bt >>> 5. Lord Home of the Hirsel (Coronet, 6 pearls)
>>> That said, I am inclined to agree with Sacha, I don't think that >>> supporters are removed if someone disclaims a peerage, and yes, Benn's >>> grandson is perfectly entitled to claim the viscouncy.
>> Lord Stansgate's rank hasn't changed though. It is simply that he has >> chosen not to use it, surely? He hasn't lost it and could be addressed as >> Viscount Stansgate again tomorrow and quite legitimately? >> Indeed, Tony Benn's oldest son may choose to use the title, though it seems >> unlikely that he will. Hilary Benn is very unpopular today re the badger >> cull BTW .
> No, this is wrong. The peerage has ceased to exist until Tony Benn > dies; he cannot, short of further legislation, ever be Viscount > Stansgate again. On his death, the effect of the disclaimer is > exhausted, and his heir succeeds to the title as if it had never > occurred. Disclaimer is for life; no question of "choosing" not to use > the title arises. The operative provision is quite simple:
> "The disclaimer of a peerage by any person under this Act shall be > irrevocable and shall operate ... to divest that person (and, if he is > married, his wife) of all right or interest to or in the peerage, and > all titles, rights, offices, privileges and precedence attaching > thereto and to relieve him of all obligations and disabilities > arising therefrom, but shall not accelerate the succession to that > peerage nor affect its devolution on his death." (Peerage Act 1963, > s.3)
> Clearly his "rank" has changed, since he loses the precedence which > goes with the peerage.
> The most natural interpretation of this provision seems to be that it > deprives the disclaiming peer of the "privilege" of having supporters > to his arms, but I don't know what the actual practice of the CoA has > been in such cases. I agree that Lord Home's is the obvious case to > check, if anybody is in a position to do that.
Yes, and thank you to you and Graham for pointing this out. Perhaps Patrick can find out about the supporters?
> >> On 5 Jul, 13:57, Sacha <sa...@nowhere.myzen.co.uk> wrote: > >>> On 5/7/08 05:18, in article 16717-486EF60F-...@storefull-3151.bay.webtv.net,
> >>> "carst...@webtv.net" <carst...@webtv.net> wrote: > >>>> Peers tend to have things on their coats of arms that most people dont, > >>>> such as supporters, etc. If a peer with such things on their coat of > >>>> arms ceases to be a peer, > >>>> renunciation shortly after succeeding, doing a Taafe, or whatever, does > >>>> he get to keep the coat of arms as it is, or is it withdrawn and/or > >>>> redone without the extra goodies?
> >>>> apologies, my quotation, apostrophe, plus, minus, hyphen and several > >>>> other keys are not working.
> >>> Anthony Wedgwood Benn, aka Viscount Stansgate, has never used his title and > >>> ISTR that while he fought for and succeeded, in getting the right to > >>> renounce the title for himself and call himself Mr Benn and remain an MP, he > >>> tried also to renounce it in perpetuity and bring such a possibility into > >>> law and there he failed. I'm not sure my memory is right on that but it's > >>> something that lingers in the back of my mind. > >>> IF his male heir, Stephen Benn, chooses to call himself Mr Benn for the rest > >>> of his life, it does not prevent *his* son and heirs from becoming Viscount > >>> Stansgate in their turn. Surely this means that nothing changes other than > >>> the peer is known as Mr from personal choice. > >>> -- > >>> Sacha
> >> I haven't got the relevent books handy where I am at the moment, but > >> it may be an idea to check on Alec Douglas-Home's Coat of Arms in his > >> various different incarnations: coronets are a good indication of what > >> happens to individuals when their rank changes.
> >> 1. The Hon Alec Douglas-Home > >> 2. Viscount Dunglass > >> 3. Earl of Home (Coronet, 8 pearls raised on points, with strawberry > >> leaves between the points) > >> 4. Sir Alec Douglas-Home Bt > >> 5. Lord Home of the Hirsel (Coronet, 6 pearls)
> >> That said, I am inclined to agree with Sacha, I don't think that > >> supporters are removed if someone disclaims a peerage, and yes, Benn's > >> grandson is perfectly entitled to claim the viscouncy.
> >Lord Stansgate's rank hasn't changed though. It is simply that he has > >chosen not to use it, surely? He hasn't lost it and could be addressed as > >Viscount Stansgate again tomorrow and quite legitimately? > >Indeed, Tony Benn's oldest son may choose to use the title, though it seems > >unlikely that he will. Hilary Benn is very unpopular today re the badger > >cull BTW .
> No, this is wrong. The peerage has ceased to exist until Tony Benn > dies; he cannot, short of further legislation, ever be Viscount > Stansgate again. On his death, the effect of the disclaimer is > exhausted, and his heir succeeds to the title as if it had never > occurred. Disclaimer is for life; no question of "choosing" not to use > the title arises. The operative provision is quite simple:
> "The disclaimer of a peerage by any person under this Act shall be > irrevocable and shall operate ... to divest that person (and, if he is > married, his wife) of all right or interest to or in the peerage, and > all titles, rights, offices, privileges and precedence attaching > thereto and to relieve him of all obligations and disabilities > arising therefrom, but shall not accelerate the succession to that > peerage nor affect its devolution on his death." (Peerage Act 1963, > s.3)
> Clearly his "rank" has changed, since he loses the precedence which > goes with the peerage.
> The most natural interpretation of this provision seems to be that it > deprives the disclaiming peer of the "privilege" of having supporters > to his arms, but I don't know what the actual practice of the CoA has > been in such cases. I agree that Lord Home's is the obvious case to > check, if anybody is in a position to do that.
According to a former staff member of the College of Arms, posting in the American Heraldry Society forum some time ago, a peer who renounces his peerage also loses the use of any "accidents" of peerage included in the arms, specifically the supporters, coronet, and barred helm. He keeps the shield and crest and displays them with the helm of a knight or esquire, whichever is appropriate.
