Imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1538 waiting to be executed, Henry Courtenay, the Earl of Devon, wrote on his cell walls words which would become his family's motto - "Where have I fallen, what have I done?" Nearly 500 years later, another Earl of Devon, is once again contemplating getting the chop. Charlie Courtenay, the 19th or 38th Earl of Devon, depending on how you count it, is one of the 87 remaining hereditary peers who will be kicked out of the House of Lords this year, if the government's House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill passes. He is fairly relaxed about his impending departure. Henry Courtenay's beheading was one of four the family has suffered, so for the current Earl of Devon "executions" - as he puts it - are nothing new. "For us hereditaries, that's what happens." For hundreds of years,hereditary peers had the right to make and debate laws in Parliament, a right they inherited from their fathers and passed on to their sons. In 1999, then Prime Minister Tony Blair described their presence in the House of Lords as an "anachronism" and got rid of more than 600 of them but, following what was supposed to be a temporary compromise, 92 were saved. Twenty-five years on, a new Labour government has come to power and ishoping to get rid of the ones who remain. The BBC has spoken to four of those peers preparing to pack up their parliamentary desks. Charlie Courtenay is happy to talk about his family's long history but growing up he felt uncomfortable about his privileged background. "It's obviously awkward and embarrassing on a personal front. Particularly it doesn't help if you live in a castle - you feel a bit like the odd one out." "I moved away from England for ten years and lived in America, where it suddenly became a lot easier. "By moving to America, where the response was 'gee, that's really interesting, tell me more', I learnt to talk about it with a bit more confidence." His distant ancestor, Baldwin de Redvers was given the title in 1142 a reward for backing Empress Matilda's right to the throne. He inherited it following his father's death in 2015, and began to think more deeply about what it meant to be an earl. His father had been kicked out of the House of Lords in the 1999 cull but his son was able to return via a by-election process, by which hereditaries who have died can be replaced by others from the same political grouping. He says he remembers thinking "here's a nice opportunity to provide a Devon voice in Westminster which is exactly the job Baldwin was given 900 years ago." The Earl of Devon is what he calls an "unashamed" proponent of hereditary peers. "I am the one person who defends the indefensible," he jokes. He argues that, at a time of concern about the "rabid consumption of our natural world" hereditaries offer a "long-term, multi-generational view" and are less likely to be focused on short term political gains. With his remaining months, he is hoping to, if not change the law, then get some support for his amendment to remove what he calls "the patriarchal, misogynistic" rules that bar women from inheriting most titles. "I find it faintly, totally ridiculous, embarrassing and wrong that my sisters and my aunt or my daughter can't inherit the title." Whether or not his amendments are accepted, it is all but certain that his children will not get the chance to sit in the Lords based on the title alone - a fact the earl is more than resigned to. "The big time for the Courtenay family was around 1100. Ever since then it's been a kind of slight gentle winding down of glories. "This is just another step on the route to ignominy." "I will not miss commuting 672 miles there and back every week," says Lord Thurso, a Liberal Democrat peer. He lives in Thurso, a town which is on the north coast of Scotland and about as far from the Lords as you can be without getting on a boat. He has no problem with hereditary peers getting the boot ("the idea we have some unique quality is laughable," he says) but doubts it will make much difference. "This is another sticking plaster over something that really needs to be dealt with." He says the Lords have good debates and scrutinise the government's plans "extremely well" but "does it actually get us anywhere? It doesn't." To have influence with the government, the Lords needs legitimacy, he says. "A house full of largely retired MPs put out to grass for 30 or 40 years or people like me who inherited it because their grandfather was cabinet secretary? That's no way to put together a second chamber." In 2012, he worked on a doomed plan that would have seen the Lords made up of a combination of elected and appointed peers. He says there is not "cat in hell's chance" of the government making any further changes once the current bill is passed. He wants to see ministers use the legislation to make other changes including a 20 year term limit for new peers and a restriction on the size of the house. "If you've got those two, well, then we can wait another 100 years or so for democracy," he sighs. Lord Howe inherited his title from a son-less second cousin in 1984, along with Penn House, a stately Buckinghamshire home. "My wife and I lived in a small terrace house in London. She was a teacher. I was working in bank. "All of a sudden I had a call to say I'd inherited the title. "It was a shock to the system - particularly when you arrive on a dark January evening, the front door creaks open and there is a butler saying 'Welcome home your Lordship'. And it didn't feel like home at all." The heating bill cost more than his annual salary, he remembers. Just a few years after becoming a peer, he was made a minister by then Conservative prime minister John Major ("Must have been scraping the barrel," he says). He's been on the front bench of his party ever since in various roles. Nearly 40 years on, his enthusiasm for the Lords has not diminished. "I love the place. I've found it very fulfilling. And just occasionally you feel that you've done a little bit of good." Lord Hacking is a rare thing - a Labour hereditary peer. There are only four of his kind, a fact that partly explains the government's enthusiasm to get rid of hereditaries. He got the title in 1971, but never expected to stay so long. He assumed hereditary peers would soon be removed and decided that once kicked out he could run to be an MP. "It didn't quite work out like," he says. "A bad political misjudgement." "I remained in the House of Lords until 1999 when I was 62 and that was a bit late then to think about getting into the House of Commons. He backs his party's position on hereditary peers but not without regret. "I wouldn't say I'm happy to get rid of them. I'm sad but I think what will happen... is that the very best of the hereditary peers will be invited to have a life peerage. "I'm sure there will be a compromise. We always compromise out of situations in England." You can listen to the interviews on BBC Radio 4's The Westminster Houron BBC Sounds
'Route to ignominy': Hereditary Lords on prospect of leaving parliament
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Hereditary Peers Face Removal from House of Lords as Reform Bill Advances"
Bbc News
7.4
TruthLens AI Summary
The fate of hereditary peers in the House of Lords is once again under scrutiny as the government prepares to pass the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which aims to remove the remaining 87 hereditary peers from Parliament. Among them is Charlie Courtenay, the current Earl of Devon, who reflects on his family's long history with the title and the implications of its potential loss. He expresses a sense of resignation towards the changes, humorously likening his family's past 'executions'—including that of his ancestor Henry Courtenay in 1538—to the impending 'executions' of his peers from the House of Lords. Courtenay acknowledges the historical context of hereditary titles, emphasizing the need for a long-term perspective on issues such as environmental degradation, a viewpoint he believes hereditary peers uniquely provide. He is also advocating for reforms that would allow women to inherit titles, challenging the patriarchal structures that currently govern titles of nobility.
In interviews with other hereditary peers, differing opinions about the upcoming changes emerge. Lord Thurso, who lives far from Westminster, supports the removal of hereditary peers but questions the efficacy of the Lords in influencing government policy. He argues that the current structure lacks legitimacy and suggests that more significant reforms are necessary for the House of Lords to be effective. Meanwhile, Lord Howe shares his unexpected journey into peerage and reflects on the fulfilling nature of his work in the Lords, despite the impending changes. Lord Hacking, a rare Labour hereditary peer, expresses sadness over the loss of hereditary peers but acknowledges the likelihood of a compromise that may offer some an opportunity for life peerages. As these peers prepare for their exit, the debate continues over the future of the House of Lords and the role of hereditary titles in modern governance.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article provides a compelling examination of the impending changes facing hereditary peers in the UK Parliament. It highlights the historical context behind hereditary titles and presents individual stories of those affected, particularly focusing on Charlie Courtenay, the Earl of Devon. This narrative not only serves to inform but also to evoke a sense of nostalgia and reflection on the role of the aristocracy in modern governance.
Historical Context and Current Implications
The reference to Henry Courtenay and his historical plight underscores the dramatic shifts that have occurred over centuries regarding nobility's role in governance. The mention of the government's intention to eliminate hereditary peers from the House of Lords speaks to a broader theme of modernization and democratization within the UK political system. This change reflects ongoing debates about privilege and representation in contemporary society.
Public Perception and Social Commentary
The article aims to shape public perception of hereditary peers, suggesting that their removal is a necessary step towards progress. By portraying Charlie Courtenay as somewhat nonchalant about his loss of status, the article may seek to mitigate any sympathy for the hereditary peers, framing their situation as a natural evolution rather than a tragic loss. This approach could influence public sentiment by normalizing the idea of aristocracy becoming obsolete.
Potential Underlying Agendas
There may be a desire to divert attention from other pressing political issues, such as economic challenges or social inequality, by focusing on the removal of hereditary peers. By drawing attention to the historical and personal aspects of the hereditary peerage, the article could be seen as a way to soften the blow of this political change, making it more palatable to the public.
Trustworthiness and Manipulative Elements
The article appears to be factual, relying on historical references and personal anecdotes to support its claims. However, its portrayal of hereditary peers could be interpreted as subtly manipulative; it frames the narrative in a way that encourages readers to view their removal as a positive development. The use of emotional language and historical parallels may invoke a bias towards supporting the government's stance.
Comparison with Other Media Coverage
This coverage aligns with broader media narratives that critique the relevance of aristocracy in modern governance, particularly in light of ongoing discussions about social equity and political reform. Other articles addressing similar topics may share a common thread of advocating for a more egalitarian political structure, suggesting an emerging consensus among media outlets on this issue.
Socioeconomic and Political Consequences
The removal of hereditary peers could lead to significant shifts in the political landscape, potentially increasing public support for further reforms aimed at democratizing the House of Lords. This could lead to a re-evaluation of the roles and powers of unelected officials in the UK government, impacting legislation and governance styles.
Target Audience and Community Response
The article likely resonates more with progressive audiences who support the idea of reducing aristocratic influence in government. This demographic may view the removal of hereditary peers as aligning with their values of equality and meritocracy, thereby fostering a sense of support for the government’s actions.
Market and Economic Impact
While the article does not directly link its content to market dynamics, changes in governance structures can influence investor confidence and political stability, which in turn can impact stock markets. Sectors associated with public services or infrastructure may be particularly sensitive to these developments, as they often rely on government support and policies.
Global Relevance and Current Affairs
The discussion surrounding hereditary peers is relevant in the context of global trends towards democratization and the questioning of traditional power structures. As countries around the world grapple with similar issues of privilege and representation, this article contributes to a larger dialogue about the role of aristocracy in contemporary governance.
AI Utilization in Content Creation
It's possible that AI tools were employed in crafting this article, particularly in organizing historical data and personal narratives to create a compelling storyline. If AI was involved, it may have influenced the tone and structure, aiming to engage readers through relatable anecdotes and historical parallels.
The insights provided in this article are mostly grounded in factual history, although the narrative framing could lead to perceptions of bias. Overall, while the article serves an informative purpose, it also seeks to evoke particular sentiments regarding the modernization of the UK political system.