Off With Their Headers: A Brief History Of Stripping Titles
5 min read
Stripping royals of their titles is not as difficult as some make out and easier than doing the same to peers, writes Daniel Brittain, as he explores the long history of expressing displeasure
The removal of Prince Andrew's title is just the latest example of how the ever-flexible British constitution has found numerous ways of making disapproval clear.
The German problem
The First World War provoked huge anti-German feeling, and in response in 1917 George V issued a proclamation changing the family name of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the rather more homely Windsor. But because of the still active Hanoverian connection to the Windsors, there was still the problem of the German relatives.
The Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 dealt exclusively with distant members of the royal family who lived in Germany and actively supported that country during the war, namely the Dukes of Albany and Cumberland and the latter’s son. Cumberland and son were in the German army and Albany was the ruling Duke of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, who later ended up joining the Nazi Party. Somewhat bizarrely, it also included the Irish peer Viscount Taaffe whose family had lived in Austria since the 1700s and who was not remotely royal or even British.
The legislation took some time to take effect, with the king only signing their exclusion from the peerage on 28 March 1919, after the armistice and exactly three months before the Treaty of Versailles. Whilst deprivation of the peerages had taken an act, it was far simpler and quicker to revoke their status as HRH and prince. That was achieved by Letters Patent issued on 30 November 1917 following George V’s signing of the necessary warrant. No act was required.
Could this be done today? Absolutely. A similar warrant could be issued in respect of Andrew’s HRH and Prince. A further document could be issued to remove the Garter, and deprivation of the Victorian Order requires only a simple direction by the King (as happened to Sir Anthony Blunt in 1979). A more general version of the Titles Deprivation Act could apply to all peerages.
Acts of Attainder
If these are some of the options available for miscreants in the Royal Family, what powers could be used against today’s members of the House of Lords who break its rules? Probably not the draconian powers of Acts of Attainder.
These acts were deployed from the 14th century, reaching notable peaks in Henry VIII’s reign and following the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745. Acts of Attainder were used principally for treason cases, trumped up or otherwise, and importantly avoided the inconvenience of a trial. They resulted in the loss of the title for the peer and their successors and the forfeiture of all lands. It was perhaps marginally better than being attainted followed by execution, which monarchs often favoured as a swift solution to rid them of troublesome relations and subjects. It’s no surprise that Henry VIII was an assiduous user, instigating the necessary legislation for (amongst many others) Queen Catherine Howard for adultery and his loyal champion Thomas Cromwell. Both also succumbed to the axe.
Scots peers loyal to the “Old Pretender” the putative James III and VIII in 1715, and his son Bonnie Prince Charlie the “Young Pretender” in 1745, were naturally seen as treasonous by the British government and were attainted. Amongst those to lose their lands and title was the 5th Lord Balfour of Burleigh who supported the Jacobite cause in 1715. Yet times and political leanings change – 150 years later his descendant managed to reclaim the peerage, and as a staunch Unionist went on to become Scotland secretary in the Salisbury and Balfour governments.
The House of Lords today
In our own times, the Lords has found methods to suspend peers. In the first decade of the century, one was excluded for 18 months over expenses claims, whilst two others received six-month suspensions after being paid by lobbyists to put down amendments to government bills.
It was felt though that stronger statutory powers were required. Ten years ago, the House of Lords Reform Act of 2014 and the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 created a Commissioner for Standards with substantial powers over peers who break the law or the House’s code of conduct. The Commons was taking more powers too with the Recall of MPs Act 2015 forcing MPs to face a by-election in the most serious cases.
Reports issued by the Lords Standards Commissioner go to the Conduct Committee, to whom appeals can be made. In the most extreme case where a peer has received a minimum prison sentence of a year and a day, the penalty is expulsion. In 2020 following a Conduct Committee report, Lord Ahmed faced expulsion from the Lords after sexually exploiting a woman who had approached him in 2017 in his capacity as a member of the House. He chose to resign from the Lords after the committee’s report and before the penalty was implemented.
The commissioner deals with many cases a year ranging from comparatively modest complaints (a rap on the knuckles is the minimum sentence) up to the most serious. He currently has five cases on his books, including that of Baroness Mone on seven prospective breaches of the code. The case is currently suspended to avoid prejudicing any criminal proceedings.
Permanent exclusion is a very severe sentence, but – and it’s a very important but – the Lords have no powers to strip a peer of their title. Lord Ahmed is still Lord Ahmed. Any change would have to come from an Act of Parliament.
In recent years two MPs have attempted this through Presentation Bills. Rachael Maskell’s Removal of Titles Bill in the 22-23 session (and re-introduced last month) gives the monarch power to “remove any title” and Bob Seely’s Titles Deprivation Act 1917 Amendment Bill dealt with the Royal Family and gave the king power “to deprive in certain circumstances Princes of their British Dignities and titles”. Might the Andrew case prompt the present government to be attracted to either of these as it ponders how to respond?
