One of the many constitutional changes His Majesty desires us to make is the establishment of a bicameral Parliament, wherein an upper house would exist with membership attached to nobility. We have several options regarding this:
First, my favoured method, is similar to the UK House of Lords prior to the Labour party's meddling. All holders of a noble title in their own right, excluding the generally honourary title Prince, are entitled to a seat in the upper house.
Second, somewhat similar to the Spanish system of Grandees and Titled Nobles, is a system in which a seat in the upper house is attached to a title and inherited with it.
Third, a system toward which the UK seems to be moving, wherein any nobleman may be appointed, or even elected, a seat in the upper house for life.
In my opinion the former two are infinitely preferable to the latter, although the latter two almost merge in the realm of micronationalism, as titles are rarely inherited.
Herr Baron,
I agree that we need a bicameral Parliament, the House of Lords is essential to the future of the Kingdom of Hanover. I believe in a House of Lords and believe that your idea is a solid. I favour the British or the Spanish Model. But in the British system the Justices of the High Courts and the Church gets sets, would we amend that to just Lords?
The last point of the newer UK model, I think the Lords should not be elected but there have always been lifetime peerages that do not allow for heriditary systems. The Viscount Evereste did not hold a hereditary title in the 1930's for example in the House of Lords
My Lord,
The possible inclusion of certain Justices in the House of Peers (as I shall call it for the time being) conflicts with the separation of Legislative and Judicial power. If we choose to remove said separation, then I would advocate that at least the Chief Justice hold a seat. Obviously, since we have no state religion, the clergy holding seats is not feasible.
It is true that there have always been life peerages - indeed, English peerages were originally exclusively for life. However, this system did not last very long, and therefore I tend to consider it a transition to the hereditary system. Life peerages only reappeared in the early 19th century, and would remain insignificant until recent times.
Sincerely,
Lord Oldenburg
Herr Baron,
It is understandable and I agree that there should be no church or Justices seat. If it is necessary I would not take my seat in a House of Lords until my term as Chief Justice is over. I believe we need a seperation of the bodies, the Legislative and Judicial Branches need to have seperation, that being said we will create our own formula. But I do like the Spanish system.
PM McQueeny,
In Calormen, I hold the Princely title mentioned by you as an honorary title in addition to prince with an hereditary estate. would the princely title with the estate get a seat. or would all princes be denied
Your Royal Highess,
As per the current authority on Peerage titles in Hanover, HM's "Royal Decree: Organization of Peerage", Prince does not qualify as a peerage title. Therefore, you would not be entitled to a seat in the House of Peers by right of that title. You may, however, be entitled to a seat by right of a Dukedom, etc.
Sincerely,
Lord Oldenburg
yes I believe I am by the Grand Duchy of Wuerttembourg(english translation) or the Marquisate of Terebinthia
As I have stated numerous times, Prince Daniel, the Grand-Duchy is currently not included as a Dukedom. The Only Peer Dukes at this time are the following titles:
There are six as created by HM James I
Duke of Brunswick
Duke of Guelph
Duke of Huntington
Duke of Harburg
Duke of Claremont
Duke of Gottingen
These are our only Duchies. Future Dukes given a new title would be considered Dukedoms am I correct?
Also. I favor a system that all Peers are guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords. Currently only the Hanoverian Dukes are peers. A Decree of Peerage or some such thing would be required for all lesser nobles to be considered peers.
The Upper House would be this House of Peers, all legislation proposed by the lower house would have to be approved by the House of Peers. Yes?
Maybe we could grant the peers judicial powers. I think including this would make things less complicated. We could still have the Cheif Justice or we could call it the Lord Justice or whatever who would be over the Judicial aspect of the Lords with the other Peers as judges.?
Ag
Obviously there would be transition and Grand Duks and Dukes and such need to be Unified in title under the Kings Discretion.
As to the Justice Aspect, I believe we need to continue to have a seperate Judicial Branch and the House of Lords or Peers would be part of a bicamerial Parliament and as such a legislative branch. We could make certain allowances but alas it should never be the merging of the Judicial and the legislative branches.
Most Esteemed Delegates,
His Majesty, Lord McIntyre, Prince Daniel and I have agreed upon the following points regarding this issue:[list]
[*]There should be no distinction between Peers and Nobles, and all Nobles should have a seat in the upper house. Basically, the first option I mentioned in my earlier post.<>
[*]The upper house should not hold any judicial functions, and no Justices should hold seats in it.<>
[*]The Prime Minister should be selected from the members of both houses, and therefore a Noble sitting in the upper house may be appointed Prime Minister.<>
[*]The upper house should be known as the House of Peers, and the lower house as the House of Commons.<>
[st]Sincerely,
Lord Oldenburg