Commonwealth Forums

Gentlemen,

Just to summarise where we have arrived at in our discussions:

1. House of Peers: we seem to have agreed on the principle of excluding Bishops and Law Lords (if any). We have yet to finalise whether Princes are to be excluded from membership. My own view is that as Princes of the Blood, they should be excluded.

2. House of Commons: there seems to be general agreement on this.

3. Discussions on the Prime Minister and status of ministers continuing.

I believ that the princes with estates( there 2 in Calormen, 1 filled) were meant to be inlcuded within the house of peers.

My recollection was that Prince would be honourific and not hold the right to a seat, but that Princes would hold a seat by right of their various peerage titles.

i was bringing it up to the fact that Calormen has 1 prince with an estate with a possible second.

I understood it to be that any noble that had an estate would serve in the House of peers

Prince Daniel: Unless you mean a territorial designation (i.e., Duke of X, X being the territorial designation.) in the title itself, Hanover has no concept of estates. Obviously we cannot have a HoP limited to just you, so an estate requirement makes no sense.

Gentlemen,

The reasoning behind my wanting Princes of the Blood excluded from the House of Peers, is to remove the near relatives of the King from the legislature. This is to protect the Royal family.

It goes without saying that any title holder who sits in the House of Commons, should not also sit in the House of Peers.

the Prince of silesia is not royal in Calormen and is separate from the royal family. The reason I am royal as well is that HM Alexander took me into his family as well