Don't you think the Brits should change the rules of inherited titles?

[raccoon]

For instance, if the Duke of Earl's eldest child is a girl, she should inherit the title and be Duchess of Earl, then pass it on to her children.

But maybe they already have?

[SteppingRazor]

1. Why not just do away with them completely then?

I mean, tradition is the only reason inherited titles are still going. If you're going to end the traditions behind them, what's the point? End them all and you'd save British taxpayers millions of pounds.

[raccoon]

3. Good idea. I live in SC, and I've notice whenever somebody talks about "tradition"

as a reason for not changing something, it means a certain group or groups of people (but not the speaker) are going to get screwed.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Historical continuity is neat. It's kinda neat there's always a Duke or Duchess of Whatever. nt

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

22. It's kind of a caste system isn't it?

Rewarding those who won the birth lottery............. :shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

25. Ours is much more subtle over here...nt

[LeftishBrit]

11. We are moving in that direction...

the House of Lords is being reformed in terms of moving away from the hereditary peerages to a mixture of elected and appointed peers (personally I think they should all be elected).

The Monarchy is still alive, however, though probably not forever. Not clear whether it costs more in taxes than it brings in tourism revenue.

[SteppingRazor]

13. And isn't it kind of a moot point anyway, in that the HOL has next to no power? n/t

[msanthrope]

2. Yes. Abolish them all. n/t

[Grey]

4. But, then who would fill the

House of Lords in the British government?

[Deep13]

5. Those appointed for life based on some special merit.

Usually they are former politicians, judges or others who have expertise in some important matter. These are the ones who are most instrumental in making poblic policy for the HOL anyway. There positions are for life only and are not inherited.

[Grey]

6. I, personally, don't like "appointed for life".

maybe to age 75 or 12 years, which ever comes first. Some of those Old Farts just don't know when to step down.
I, also, like them to be appointed but with some expertise, or experience. One to our new Senators is a life long reporter, while I'm sure he knows politics I'm not sure about his knowledge of the law. Another problem I have is any one of our Senators might be resting comfortably in a mental hospital or "Seeking medical treatment in Mexico" for 8 or 9 months every year, year after year and we couldn't hold them accountable. I think they should have to show up for work for a given number of work days or be retired. Some have even had other Senators sign in for them. Our Senate is sort-of based on the "House of Lords" idea. I know someone will jump in correct me if I got that wrong. Other people have said "Just get rid of them" but I think every government needs checks and balance.

[Captain Hilts]

9. Even the Vatican doesn't let Cardinals beyond age 70/75? vote for next pope. nt

[Matilda]

18. But they let them BE Pope.

Which really doesn't make much sense.

[Deep13]

10. Being unelected has its advantages.

The USA Senate is so worried about raising campaign funds and powerful interests who can fund their opponents that they are afraid to do anything that changes the status quo. I frankly think the pre-17th Amendment syatem was better.

My remark was in response to a question asking who would do the work of the HOL in England if the hereditary positions were eliminated. Right now every fuedal lord or dame in UK has a right to sit in on HOL business and vote by right of birth. Compared to an inherited office that one may pass to his heirs, a life appointment is definite cut-off point. And most of the inherited piers choose not to participate in governance and leave it to the lifers who have some qualification to be there.

[wickerwoman]

14. This has already been reformed,

by the HOL Act of 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Act_1999

"The House of Lords Act 1999 provides firstly that "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."... The elections for officers of the House were held on 27 and 28 October 1999, while those for peers elected by party were held on 3 and 4 November; the results were proclaimed to the House on 29 October and 5 November...The Labour Government expected to eventually present a bill to remove the remaining ninety-two hereditary peers from the House of Lords, and in 2009 introduced the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which would end by-elections to replace hereditaries thereby removing them through attrition."

Very few members of the current HOL are there by virtue of a hereditary peerage and those that are will be replaced by elected officers when they retire or die.

[Deep13]

15. Pretty good. nt

[raccoon]

12. Mick Jagger, Roger Daltrey, Roger Waters, Peter Noone,

Gerry Marsden, Charlie Watts...get the picture?

[Captain Hilts]

23. What? No women?

[raccoon]

26. Lulu and Petula Clark. nt

[sarge43]

17. Life peers. The title can't be inherited. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

8. Yes. My dad gave up his when he joined the USN. Can't be prez. Damn. nt

[sarge43]

16. Some titles can be inherited by a daughter, especially in Scotland

The earldom of Errol for example. Montbatten is another.

[Captain Hilts]

24. Yes! Scotland made that change in the late '70s! Proud my peeps are from Scotland!

A relative:

[rurallib]

19. Where is this on my list of things to care about?

[JVS]

20. Liberte, egalite, fraternite, ou la mort!

[KakistocracyHater]

21. they don't care about daughters, besides, they inherit people with the title

isn't that enough? All the people on their area of land go with the title. Seems weird to me, but I'm not British. Just think Prince Harry or whoever will inherit the people of Britain.