Secret Squirrel:The Problems Of Peerage Title Removal.

Secret Squirrel turns his attention to peerages,titles,hereditary and otherwise, and the possibility of, and the mechanics of and the implications of,attempts to remove peerage and other titles.The peerage started approximately about 1337 when Edward,the Black Prince,was created Duke of Cornwall,and was
deemed to be the highest rank in the peerage by Edward III,and from thence it evolved.

Let's turn our attention to a rather famous and certainly well known literary figure who was possessed of a very varied and interesting life, and certainly a luminary with respect to our ponderings of the removal of peerage titles,Sir Thomas Malory.His historical name, of various spellings, included, Mallerre, Maillorie, Mallory, Mallery, Maelor, Maleore, and as it seems he may have spelled it, Malleorre.He was the writer of Le Morte D'arthur,famous knight of the realm.In1441 he had been knighted,then he became a problem.In 1444 he had been charged with assault and theft,in 1445 he became an MP,for Warwickshire,(the best material for it it seems), and in 1450 Malory tried to ambush and murder the Duke of Buckingham. He allegedly raped Joan Smith not once but twice,(she was so very good it seems,perhaps made delightful noises so she deserved a second go round) stole goods from her husband, extorted money, pilfered cattle, and destroyed the Duke of Buckingham's hunting lodge(had a thing for who so ever possessed that title it seems),and in between it all,he had a right good time,he committed buggery as well. In 1451 Malory was imprisoned at Coleshill, but escaped two days later by swimming the moat at night. He then twice raided Combe Abbey alongside a band of outlaws, stealing a great deal of money and harrassing the monks(more buggery it seems, he just wasn't very particular,or else very confused).

Malory was captured in 1452 and thrown into a London prison where he spent eight years awaiting trial. After he was bailed out, he was caught stealing horses and placed in a Colchester jail, but fought his way through the guards and escaped. He was recaptured and returned to the London prison, but was freed by royal pardon.During his time in prison, he wrote Le Morte D'arthur.The Marquis De Sade also wrote while in prison,various books as well, but it's subject to debate in modern times who wrote the more entertaining works.In short everyone has their good points,their redeeming qualities, seen through whose eyes to the better, is always subject to debate.

However, pointedly,he did not have his title revoked,nor did De Sade for that matter.There were times in history when peerages could be affected by things, such as,peerages were sometimes forfeit or attainted under Acts of Parliament, most often as the result of treason on the part of the holder. The blood of an attainted peer was considered "corrupted", consequently his or her descendants could not inherit the title. If all descendants of the attainted peer were to die out, however, then an heir from another branch of the family not affected by the attainder could take the title. The Forfeiture Act 1870 abolished corruption of blood; instead of losing the peerage, a peer convicted of treason would be disqualified from sitting in Parliament for the period of imprisonment.Some title,s though not peerages,could be created by Letters Of Patent, but THEY could be revoked.The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 permitted the Crown to suspend peerages if their holders had fought against the United Kingdom during the First World War. Guilt was to be determined by a committee of the Privy Council; either House of Parliament could reject the committee's report within 40 days of its presentation. In 1919, King George V issued an Order-in-Council suspending the Dukedom of Albany (together with its subsidiary peerages, the Earldom of Clarence and the Barony of Arklow), the Dukedom of Cumberland and Teviotdale (along with the Earldom of Armagh) and the Viscountcy of Taaffe (along with the Barony of Ballymote). Under the Titles Deprivation Act, the successors to the peerages may petition the Crown for a reinstatement of the titles; so far, none of them have chosen to do so.

A peer may also disclaim a hereditary peerage under the Peerage Act 1963,and,of course, peerages may not be transferred to others by any means whatsoever,including a legal agreement,made in any nation,as such that it is thence automatically ajudged to be corrupted and invalid.

So no peerages as such have ever been removed,not even revoked as it were, merely suspended,but the lineage can continue and does,and the holder remains the holder, albeit in suspension, and can be called out of suspension.So now it is proposed to revoke peerage for various reasons and matters of conduct.

Clearly there are going to be great difficulties in such matters as to judge exactly what is a crime, or conduct or personage such that it is deemed fit to revoke said titled peerage.The revocation and by whom is in question, also a necessary appeals system must be in effect thence also in all fairness, and there is the matter of wrongful accusations and convictions which can and do occur in so very many third world and backward nations,yet so in the former colony of Canada as well.Indeed convictions can occur for things various in nations directly outside the
peerage systems as well, such as the United States, and there the same applies.

We also thence enter the realm of whom exactly is to remove said peerage titles etc and by what means. Indeed the spectre of politics rears its ugly head, Labour removing some, the Conservatives giving some back,the Liberals giving and taking away and giving back again et all.In short it will result in a ridiculous idiocy, and a very long and involved process, a very expensive and unnecessary process.Also now for which adjudged crimes are peerages to be removed,are they to be financial ventures of various varieties,direct crimes such as those which were committed by Sir Thomas Malory,are they to be crimes of words such as opinions or statements made by some,under the influence or not, for example, such that a small group or even yet a large group are so offended?Thence also we must consider,should the removal be a form of suspension, not true removal, such that in the hereditary nature of any particular title, we do not punish the son(or daughter), for the sins of the father. Indeed let us take the example of the life of Sir Thomas Malory in to account, and,Allocatus levisomnum canis cubo, let us let sleeping dogs lie, as it were,and just keep things as they are,come what may,as it was in the beginning,is now,and always has been,everlasting,let it be.

(Devon,of things...Devonian.)