One reader has suggested to me that, having written about some of the formidable Baronesses in the House, I write about some of their male equivalents.
The male equivalent to Baroness Trumpington is probably the 13th Earl Ferrers. Readers will already be aware that his family name is Shirley and that he entered the House in 1954. He has some remarkable ancestors. The 4th Earl was the last peer to be hanged as a common criminal.
The current Earl Ferrers variously rises to his considerable height in order to make a point. He tends to be against change. He can also give rise to considerable debate as well as amusement. During the passage of the House of Lords Bill in 1999 he generated debate as to whether the correct term was ‘a’ hereditary peer or ‘an’ hereditary peer. During the passage of the Gender Recognition Bill, he caused amusement (albeit raising a point that had a serious element) by asking what would happen if he decided to have a sex change. Would he become Lady Ferrers? If so, what would happen to the existing Lady Ferrers?
Although sometimes masking his contributions by suggesting he may not have understood a point, this usually hides a fairly sharp mind. He can, though, occasionally cause a problem for the Hansard reporters. On one occasion, he complained that a point didn’t make much sense and expressed his exasperation by finishing mid-sentence and blowing out his cheeks in a manner somewhat resembling a horse. I saw the two Hansard reporters look at one another with a ‘what do we do with that?’ look of bewilderment!
I must ask about Hansard:
Do the Hansard chaps sit in the Chamber and are they bizarrely dressed? I haven’t noticed.
Kyle Mulholland: They used to sit in the chamber, behind the clerks, but the area is now used for wheelchair-bound peers. The Hansard reporters now sit on a raised section below the bar, close to the cross-benches. They wear normal clothes.
Perhaps you should add, as we found out in the recent TV documentary, that Earl Ferrers opposed the appointment of women peers when the Life Peerages Act came in in 1958.
His question on gender recognition does indeed raise many points. For example, what happens to titles that can’t be inherited by women? And what happens to existing marriages?
Dear Lord Norton,
Ah, Earl Ferrers. I have long been a fan of his and he is indeed one of the redoubtable Barons!
There are other hereditary peers who fit into the same category: the Earl of Onslow and the glorious Lord Denham to name but two.
Howridiculous.
Jonathan: I have been meaning for some time to research Lord Ferrer’s speech on the 1958 Bill, as I gather it was made in characteristic style. His question on the Gender Recognition Bill does indeed raise some serious points: I am not sure they were dealt with adequately at the time.
howridiculous: I plan to cover other notable peers over the course of the summer. Lord Denham is already on the list.
His gender recognition bill speech was I admit a favourite of mine and well worth reading in full. Judging by his speeches he must make for amiable conversation in the Lords’ tearooms. Though looking at this photo possibly not a good idea to ask him about his family tree!
What does Hansard do when a gesture does convey meaning in a speech that isn’t clear from the words alone but can’t obviously be described?
Jonathan: My memory of the legislation was that you had to divorce as part of the gender change. I believe on at least one occasion the divorce was followed by a civil partnership with the previous spouse!
On the titles issue I thought that they were exempted from the consequences of the legislation so that the holder remains the holder no matter their gender and that the title descends are per the patent with the birth gender being the sole factor.
Croft: s16 (Peerages etc) of the Gender Recognition Act provides that where a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under the Act, it does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour. I would need to re-read it, though, to determine its effect on the title of the person who acquires the new gender. On Hansard, there are occasions when words have to be put in the mouth of the speaker in order to make sense of a particular action; or simply to make sense of what the speaker is trying to say!
Do you mean Hansard adds words not spoken to clarify meaning. I know sometimes MPs/peers edit what they said for ‘clarity’ but I didn’t know Hansard would add words (other than basic ‘and/or’ on their own if it could change the meaning. Is this indicated in some way?
I think my comments and yours on the Gender Recognition Act are the same. My memory of the debate was that ministers deliberately didn’t legislate for the language change of Earl to be called Countess as it was probably best left either to custom or a royal warrant.
I don’t see why there needs to be a Royal Warrant or any legislation. There isn’t a Royal Warrant when someone succeeds to a peerage, is there? How about when Countess Mountbatten of Burma succeeded her father? His Letters Patent would have read, “The name, style and title of EARL MOUNTBATTEN OF BURMA”, yet his daughter is styled Countess. Earl/Countess is simply the way we address someone who holds an earldom, determined by their gender.
Croft,
Hansard reporters will usually relieve an MP (and I presume a Lord) of their speaking notes when they leave the Chamber. This is primarily to ensure that they get the correct spellings for people/places/things for the transcript. When the speaker hasn’t been as clear as they might have liked during the debate, Hansard reporters have a certain amount of license to make edits to ensure clarity, and will consult the speaker’s notes for guidance.
Quite where their editing boundaries lie I don’t know – perhaps Lord Norton can enlighten both of us on that.
The speaking notes then get posted back to the owner in the internal mail.
Matt Korris
Hansard Society
(not to be confused with Hansard, the Official Report)
Jonathan: Traditionally Royal Warrants have been used to alter or accommodate changes in the area of titles – especially social usage. Most recently adopted children were granted the same titles/styles as blood children.
In your example Countess Mountbatten of Burma succeeded because the wording said the titles descended to …the heirs male…and in default of such issue with remainder to his eldest daughter Patricia Edwina Victoria, Baroness Brabourne,.
The title was specifically created to descend to and be held by a woman; in the gender change scenario the title was (probably) not created to descend to and be held by a woman. My understanding is the law says that only an act of parliament can change the succession of a peerage. If the present holder of the peerage changes to a gender that can’t hold the peerage that clearly breaks this. The Gender Recognition Act’s solution was (I think) to say your new gender is your gender for all purposes except for peerages where in effect you are treated as your old gender. So if you are your old gender for the purposes of the peerage can you be called as though you were your new gender where that gender would disqualify you from the same. Assuming I have understood the act correctly the whole thing is a glorious mess which was I think why Lord Ferrers was able to make the speech he did.
Sigh, I should really read fully before I type:
The letters patent actually says: ‘the heirs male…and in default of such issue …to his eldest daughter Patricia Edwina Victoria, Baroness Brabourne, by the name, style and title of Countess Mountbatten of Burma‘
Croft: Hansard is not a verbatim record of what is said. Hansard will tend to ensure one’s words are grammatically correct, omit repetitions, and ensure that the words comply with standard practice. If you say ‘the Govermment is’ this will normally appear as ‘the Government are’. It will also ensure that the correct form is employed. If I refer to ‘the noble lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg’, this will appear as ‘the noble and learned lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg’. On occasion, the changes are somewhat more substantial. I may save examples for a later post.
On gender recognition, I agree that the points raised by Earl Ferrers are pertinent in demonstrating the problems that would arise in respect of an elected hereditary peer. As far as I am aware, there is little likelihood of it being anything other than a hypothetical issue.
I’m quite disappointed to learn that they correct the way peers have addressed others! I was always impressed on reading Hansard to see that Lords managed to address each other correctly every time as it can’t be easy, particularly when put on the spot.
Certainly in the chamber, as in the commons, I do hear from time to time a ‘(pause) noble lord’ where I have the sense that they have forgotten the title and used that as a fall back. I do remember in a debate one of the (Labour?) peers kept calling a Tory an earl until corrected by the peer in question. Quite what Hansard did though as altering the earlier errors would been very confusing if they printed the intervention. Perhaps they didn’t record any of the exchange.
Peers are probably lucky, very few now ‘change’ titles whereas MPs have a slightly exasperating habit of changing the seats for which they sit!
Dear Lord Norton,
I do hope you do return to Hansard reporting in due course. I can then repeat this complaint that Hansard should be a record of what is said rather than a smartened up version of what is said! Smartening up can rob the comments made of their context. An example is Margaret Thatcher’s speech in the no-confidence debate in November 1990. Her ‘I’m enjoying this; I’m enjoying this’ was translated into ‘I am enjoying this.’.
Howridiculous.
I would think that if an Earl had a sex change he would be claiming to be a Gearl.That would the point of the surgery. Now whether a Gearl should be an acknowledged title is a different matter. But sometimes I confuse English with my other languages so perhaps I am missing something here.
Is the chap that also expressed some doubts or queries about aspects of the ID Card scheme ?
Perhaps I confuse him with someone else ?
Jonathan: We try to get it right, but it can be a challenge at times to remember whether someone is ‘learned’ (held high legal office) or ‘gallant’ (held field rank in the services). Sometimes one has to remember what qualifies. The late Lord Garden was an Air Vice-Marshall and so did not quite qualify. Lord Bassam on one occasion referred to him as the ‘noble and almost gallant lord’.
Croft: One can sometimes see a peer trying hard to remember a peer’s name and, if it doesn’t come to them, then – as you say – they revert to referring to ‘the noble lord’. This may be accompanied by a look in the direction of the lord being referred to, so it is clear to those in the chamber who is being referred to. However, it is not clear in the pages of Hansard who is being mentioned: in these cases, Hansard tends to leave the words as spoken. Where a peer gets a title wrong and is corrected, then it is likely to be left as spoken. Where someone forgets how to refer to another peer or a Lord Spiritual (hardly anyone remembers how to address an Archbishop), Hansard puts in the correct address.
Howridiculous: You are right that it may not convey the flavour of what is said. Reproducing precisely what is said, though, may make it difficult to follow. You mention Margaret Thatcher repeating a phrase. The late Lord Longford used regularly to repeat the last few words of each sentence (e.g. “We live in a dangerous world, a dangerous world”), something picked up by Matthew Parris in one of his sketches. And with some speeches, repeating them word for word may be a little demanding for the reader. One peer, for example, has a tendency to say ‘My Lords’ every few seconds.
Frank W. Summers III: This is one occasion when it may be best not to anticipate events, not least given that we have very few Earls remaining in the House. I wonder how one would deal with Dukes?!
Bedd Gelert: Yes, it was Earl Ferrers who raised the issue about ID cards. I suspect getting an ID card changed in the event of a sex change would be the least of one’s problems.
Poor Lord Garden – that was meant well but it can’t help but have something of the ‘second best runner in the race’ to it!