The British Nobility thread 2: Sep 2022 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
The Marchioness of Bath attended the unveiling of "A Visionary Dream You Can Touch" to celebrate the holiday season at Harrods today, December 1:


** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 **
 
On December 10 the Marchioness of Bath attended the launch night of Guinness Open Gate Brewery London:


** Pic **
 
Dame Shan Legge-Bourke, mother of Tiggy Legge-Bourke has passed away.

www.brecon-radnor.co.uk

Royal Family Friend Dame Shan Dies at 82

Dame Shan Legge-Bourke, a close friend of the Royal Family and a prominent figure in public life, has died at her home on the Glanusk Estate, aged 82.
www.brecon-radnor.co.uk www.brecon-radnor.co.uk
 
The Marchioness of Bath has been photographed and interviewed for this week's issue of the Hello magazine:


www.hellomagazine.com

Exclusive: Inside the 'weirdly wonderful' world of the Marchioness of Bath as she prepares for Christmas at Longleat

Emma Thynn, the Marchioness of Bath, gives us a glimpse of her life during the festive period at Longleat, from hosting a family feast to welcoming celebrity guests
www.hellomagazine.com www.hellomagazine.com


www.instagram.com

HELLO! Magazine on Instagram: "Christmas at Longleat like you've never seen it 🎄 The Marchioness of Bath shares her eclectic life with us: rhinos one moment, red carpets the next, and the amusing chaos of raising boys. Oh, and the great scone debate

367 likes, 21 comments - hellomag on December 22, 2025: "Christmas at Longleat like you've never seen it 🎄 The Marchioness of Bath shares her eclectic life with us: rhinos one moment, red carpets the next, and the amusing chaos of raising boys. Oh, and the great scone debate continues… jam or...
www.instagram.com www.instagram.com
 
The Marchioness of Bath viewed the premiere performance of Cirque Du Soleil's "OVO" at Royal Albert Hall this evening:


** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 **
 
Lord-of-the-Manor said:
According to The Telegraph, the PM has called for Lord Mandelson to lose his peerage.

His official spokesman said: “The Prime Minister has asked for this to be urgently looked at and the Prime Minister believes that Peter Mandelson should not be a member of the House of Lords or use the title.

“However, the Prime Minister does not have the power to remove it. He is calling on those in the Lords to work with the Government to modernise disciplinary measures in the House to allow for the easier removal of Lords who have brought the House into disrepute.

“The PM has asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contact with Jeffrey Epstein during his periods as a government minister and report back to him.”

Archive
Click to expand...

Prime Minister Keir Starmer's claim through his official spokesman that "the Prime Minister does not have the power to remove it" makes little sense (assuming "it" refers to Lord Mandelson's title).

There is a well-established consensus that Parliament holds the power to remove peerages – and PM Starmer’s government reiterated that position only a few months ago! Quoting the latest House of Commons Library briefing on the topic:

”Halsbury’s Laws of England states that no peer “can be deprived of peerage except by or under the authority of an Act of Parliament”. The government agrees with this legal position. On 4 November 2025, Nick Thomas-Symonds (Minister for the Cabinet Office) stated in response to a parliamentary question that: “An Act of Parliament is required to remove a peerage once conferred”.​

The Prime Minister is, of course, the one person who exercises the most power by far over what legislation is enacted by Parliament. So if he does not have the power to remove Lord Mandelson’s peerage, then who does?[/indent]
 
:previous: In a House of Commons session the same day, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones) went into more detail on Prime Minister Starmer’s… surprising claim that his government has no power to remove peerages:


Simon Hoare

And the Hinduja passport, yes. Where I disagree with the Minister is in conflating the updating of the disciplinary procedures of the other place and the bringing forward of legislation—which is allowed—to remove Mandelson’s peerage. I am absolutely certain that, were the Government to bring forward a Bill, which need not be complex and hybrid as he suggested, it could be rushed through this House in a day, such is the appetite to make the point.

Darren Jones

For the sake of clarity, can I just make it clear that neither I nor the Government are here to defend Peter Mandelson? We are here to defend the integrity of this House and the other place and to ensure that where processes need updating, they are updated. On the question of legislation regarding individual Members of the other place, the fact—if I might say so—is that there is a queue. That is why the process needs to be updated to apply to all peers: to remove the need to bring forward individual legislation, whether for Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone.
Click to expand...



Esther McVey
(Tatton) (Con)

Do the Government believe that Lord Mandelson should be stripped of his peerage, yes or no? If they do believe that, they should bring forward primary legislation to do just that. I am afraid the Minister’s excuse of a queue does not wash. Will they bring forward legislation for the disgraced Lord Mandelson, their friend? If they do not, and he keeps his title despite Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor being stripped of his, what rank hypocrisy that would be. How much further can this Government stain their tarnished reputation?

Darren Jones

As I have repeatedly said, neither the Labour party nor this Government seek to defend Peter Mandelson, as the right hon. Lady implies. The Leader of the Opposition has herself called for Michelle Mone’s peerage to be removed. The point I make is that that cannot happen either, because the processes are not up to date in the House of Lords. It would be better to bring forward changes to ensure that the rules can be applied to all Members of the House of Lords in these circumstances, whether Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone, and we stand ready to do so.
Click to expand...

Alison H said:
Attention here has, for once, switched away from Andrew, to Lord Mandelson, the former UK ambassador to the US. He has resigned from the Labour Party over allegations that he received $75,000 dollars from Epstein.

He denies it. I've got no idea what is and isn't true, but it does seem as if people are being hung out to dry over unproven allegations.
Click to expand...
Alison H said:
From the files: Emails from 2009 suggest [Lord] Mandelson forwarded internal government information to Epstein when he was Gordon Brown's business secretary, and that he tried to change government policy on a planned tax on bankers' bonuses following a request from Epstein.

If that's true, it's considerably worse than anything Sarah allegedly did!

This is a man with a degree from Oxford, but evidently no common sense.
Click to expand...
Mbruno said:
Mandelson's case is far more serious because he leaked confidential government information, tried to influence government policy to benefit private individuals, and even suggested that coercion techniques should be applied against British government ministers such as Alistair Darling. Mandelson is entitled to due process of course, but, at first sight, it seems like he is a good candidate for actual jail time.
Click to expand...
Leopoldine said:
UNDERPANTS.

Sure, Mandy's facing legal issues, but trotting around in Epstein's Parisian lair in uncool underpants is sort of lame.
Click to expand...
Alison H said:
I'm a lot more bothered about Peter Mandelson apparently sending Epstein minute by minute updates on the attempts of different parties to form a coalition after the 2010 general election. It's a shame that people don't get thrown into the dungeons at the Tower of London any more!

A rare sensible suggestion from a politician (Robert Jenrick):

“In light of the appalling circumstances, Mandelson’s ministerial pension must be confiscated and donated to a charity that helps the survivors of sexual abuse."

What a good idea.
Click to expand...


On February 3, Lord Mandelson notified the House of Lords of his intention to retire from the House. (He was already on leave due to his previous posting as ambassador to the USA.)



On the same day, the Metropolitan Police announced it had launched an investigation into "a 72-year-old man, a former Government Minister, for misconduct in public office offences." Press reports confirm this referred to Lord Mandelson.

news.met.police.uk

Investigation launched into alleged misconduct in public office

Met Police Commander Ella Marriott has provided an update on an investigation into misconduct in public office offences.
news.met.police.uk news.met.police.uk

Back on January 27, the Government also provided this bizarre non sequitur in response to a peer who asked whether Lord Mandelson would be removed from the Roll of the Peerage (which was done to the Duke of York last year):


Lord Jackson of Peterborough: To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Prime Minister plans to recommend to the Sovereign that Lord Mandelson be removed from the Roll of the Peerage.

Baroness Andersen of Stoke-on-Trent [answering for the Government]: Lord Mandelson is currently on a leave of absence from the House of Lords.



Now, Prime Minister Starmer may or may not be half acknowledging that he has the power to remove peerages by arranging for Parliament to pass legislation - though he still implies that is not a suitable option:

“The prime minister believes there is a broader need for the House of Lords to be able to remove transgressors more quickly,” his spokesperson said.

“The prime minister regards it as ridiculous that a peerage cannot be removed except with primary legislation, something that has not happened since 1917. He thinks that in no other walk of life are you unsackable unless a law is passed. He thinks that the country expects the process for removing lords to be fit for purpose, and in line with expectations.”​

www.theguardian.com

Peter Mandelson resigns from Lords after Epstein email leak scandal

Former minister apparently shared confidential government emails with child sex offender and financier
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
:previous: Thanks! Like every other expert, Vernon Bogdanor agrees that an Act of Parliament can remove a peerage:

"Removing a peerage, an honour created by the Crown for life, requires an act of parliament. This has been done only once, in the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917, used against four descendants of Queen Victoria, officers in the German army, for aiding “His Majesty’s enemies”. [...]

The government is considering legislation to deprive Mandelson of his peerage. Directed against a specific individual, such legislation would be in effect an Act of Attainder, last used in 1798. It would not be easy to achieve consensus on general legislation defining the precise grounds for removing a peerage. Would it, for example, be applied to peers convicted of criminal offences? And retrospective legislation is never easy to justify."​

Original link: https://www.thetimes.com/comment/co...kes-constitution-into-tricky-waters-hmbszs68x


So perhaps the difficulty of "achieving consensus on general legislation" is exactly why the prime minister is making vague statements about improving general processes: in the hopes that lack of consensus will stall the issue?

Of course, I agree in principle that there should be clearly defined standards and an impersonal process, rather than the current double standards where convicted rapists are allowed to keep their titles while mere friends of rapists are personally stripped (or threatened with stripping) of theirs.
 
I think the problem lies in defining the grounds to remove a peerage - as Professor Bogdanor suggests.

I don't think a lot of people would quibble if it applied to peers convicted of a criminal offence - but that would not apply to Lord Mandelson (yet). So does he get to continue calling himself a Lord until he is found guilty and all avenues of appeal are closed - that could be years.

Where it becomes murkier is if vaguer criteria are applied such as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute. In a sense this would apply to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - he hasn't been charged with, let alone been found guilty of a crime but it can certainly be argued he has certainly brought the House in disrepute. But how do you define "bringing the house into disrepute" and who gets to define it? The current Parliament, the Parliament as it is comprised at the time the behaviour is up for consideration? the Courts?

Is the law only going to apply to Life Peerages or also to hereditary peerages? If to hereditary peerages, only to those with a seat in the House of Lords or generally? If it applies to hereditary peerages, does the title go into abeyance until the (disgraced) holder dies and it can then be inherited by the next in line. And if it applies to hereditaries what happens to the honorary titles? Do a wife and children remain Lady, Lord, Honourable even if the source of their titles is no longer active or if they conspired in the criminal act. What if an eldest son (or daughter if the title can be inherited) commits the crime? Do they get to continue using their honorific? Are they then automatically banned from succeeding to the title when their time comes?

While it might be tempting to act quickly, if the Government is going to put in place a law that applies generally and not just to one person, they need to carefully consider all the permutations. Certainly not beyond them, but I would rather they consider it carefully rather than jump for the easiest knee-jerk reaction.
 
Last edited:
The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, made this comment about Lord Mandelson today at Prime Minister's Questions:

"[...] I have instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title, and wider legislation to remove disgraced peers. This morning I have agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors on the grounds that he has brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute."

 
May I just make a point? Peter Mandelson is no more a member of the aristocracy/nobility than I am :) . People appointed as life peers under the 1958 Act do not hold hereditary titles, and are mainly politicians and their cronies. I don't think anyone would regard them as nobility.

As VictoriaB said, I doubt that the government's bothered to think about all the issues that might arise in terms of removing a peerage.

They're just embarrassed that a senior Labour Party figure is embroiled in so much scandal, and want to look as if they're doing something about it. And, yes, he's still officially Lord Mandelson/Baron Mandelson for now.
 
VictoriaB said:
I think the problem lies in defining the grounds to remove a peerage - as Professor Bogdanor suggests.

I don't think a lot of people would quibble if it applied to peers convicted of a criminal offence - but that would not apply to Lord Mandelson (yet). So does he get to continue calling himself a Lord until he is found guilty and all avenues of appeal are closed - that could be years.

Where it becomes murkier is if vaguer criteria are applied such as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute. In a sense this would apply to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - he hasn't been charged with, let alone been found guilty of a crime but it can certainly be argued he has certainly brought the House in disrepute. But how do you define "bringing the house into disrepute" and who gets to define it? The current Parliament, the Parliament as it is comprised at the time the behaviour is up for consideration? the Courts?
Click to expand...
And can someone who is not a member of the House of Lords (like Andrew) even bring the house in disrepute? As nowadays there are peers who are and peers who are not members of the House of Lords…
 
In the UK, the legal classification is "peer", and life peers hold the same legal status and privileges as same-ranked hereditary peers – and additional privileges too.

There is no legal definition of "nobility" in the UK, but in my general experience (others' may differ) with the term, the word "nobility" encompasses both life and hereditary members. Many people past and present who are popularly thought of as nobility (e.g. medieval European dukes, counts, and barons) did not hold hereditary titles.

Appointed crony politicians formed the foundation of the hereditary peerage in medieval times, so that tradition is being carried on by the life peers. ;)

Somebody said:
And can someone who is not a member of the House of Lords (like Andrew) even bring the house in disrepute? As nowadays there are peers who are and peers who are not members of the House of Lords…
Click to expand...

One oddity I've noticed is that even at the highest levels of politics, people use the term "peers" as if it meant "members of the House of Lords", even though, as you pointed out, there have been are hundreds of peers who are not members of the House of Lords ever since the 1999 House of Lords Act (and there will be even more of them once all the hereditary peers are expelled).
 
The issue of life and hereditary peers' shared nomenclature was alluded to in Parliament on March 25, 2025. The Earl of Devon suggested changing the name of the House of Lords, as hereditary peers are about to be removed from the House.

The Government's response was:

"The House of Lords will continue to be called the House of Lords following the passage of the Bill. The removal of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this place does not change the fact that Members of this House, save for the Lords spiritual, will continue to consist of Peers of the realm."​

 
In a DM article today it says that the Marchioness of Bath backs legal action to make sure the second son born via a surrogate mother in the US can inherit a share of 157 million GBP of the family fortune.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Marquess of Bath backs legal case for surrogate-born son's inheritance

The 8th Marquess of Bath, Ceawlin Thynn, and his wife Emma, Marchioness of Bath, welcomed the birth of their second child, Henry, in 2016.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
Alison H said:
May I just make a point? Peter Mandelson is no more a member of the aristocracy/nobility than I am :) . People appointed as life peers under the 1958 Act do not hold hereditary titles, and are mainly politicians and their cronies. I don't think anyone would regard them as nobility.

As VictoriaB said, I doubt that the government's bothered to think about all the issues that might arise in terms of removing a peerage.

They're just embarrassed that a senior Labour Party figure is embroiled in so much scandal, and want to look as if they're doing something about it. And, yes, he's still officially Lord Mandelson/Baron Mandelson for now.
Click to expand...
Exactly he's a life Peer only and a non hereditary Baron ,the title was created in 2008 and he's more or less a
Persona non grata!
 
Some concerns regarding the Government's announced legislative plans (see the posts abovethread):


Regarding the planned law to make it easier for governments to remove peerages:

Free Speech Union director Toby Young (Lord Young of Acton) pointed out that if the new law expands the government's power to strip peerages for vaguely worded reasons such as "bringing the House into disrepute", the government could readily abuse that power.

There is precedent: The Honours Forfeiture Committee was originally established to strip honors from persons convicted of crimes, but since then, there have been serious attempts to revoke honors from politicians simply for opposing the government on a political issue.



Regarding the plans for bespoke legislation to remove Lord Mandelson's peerage specifically:

Former Guardian investigative reporter Henry Dyer pointed out that, although it would be perfectly legal, Parliament targeting a single individual in this manner would be uncomfortably reminiscent of historical "acts of attainder": laws used to punish and execute people (and their descendants) without needing to prove them guilty of anything.

Acts of attainder have not been used by monarchs and parliaments since the 17th century.

www.theguardian.com

Thursday briefing: Wâill the Epstein âfiles âthreaten âPeter Mandelsonâs âlegacyâ?

In todayâs newsletter: A police investigation, newly released documents and longâstanding questions aboutâ accountability have converged to place one of Labourâs most enduring figures under unprecedented scrutiny
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


Iluvbertie said:
Is this for alleged criminal behaviour or only after a conviction. If the former then the Presumption of Innocence is also being removed in the UK.
Click to expand...

That is also a valid concern. As we are often reminded, peerages legally are property. Whatever one thinks of Lord Mandelson, would the public want their Government passing laws to confiscate, say, the houses and bank savings of people who have been accused of sins or crimes but not found guilty?

Well, probably yes, judging by how many wanted Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to be forcibly removed from the house he already paid millions of pounds for, without any financial compensation.
 
Lady Frances von Hofmannsthal attended an event to celebrate ERDEM's 20th anniversary at Dover Street Market in London yesterday, February 19:


** Pic **
 
The Marchioness of Bath was seen at the Netflix afterparty for the BAFTA Film Awards 2026 yesterday, February 22:


** Pic **
 
An update on legislation regarding removal of peerages from the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones:

"We are working with relevant advisers and Departments to scope the Bill, and the measures that need to be brought forward for that to be effective. The legislation raises a number of constitutional questions, which have taken some time for the Government to consider. The last time peerages were removed, I think, was in the 1600s, so it is not something that has been done recently. We must ensure that the scope and drafting of the Bill is done in a way that means it will be effective when it is brought forward to the House."



Does anyone have any ideas on what "constitutional questions" he might be alluding to?

Funny that he says he thinks the last time peerages were removed was in the 1600s. He himself mentioned the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 in Parliament last week - and had to submit a correction because he confused World War One with World War Two...



The Speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle, cautioned MPs to "exercise a degree of restraint in referencing specific matters under investigation" so as not to risk prejudicing the live police investigation.


I imagine he will say the same about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor when the time comes.
 
The Speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle, made a statement in Parliament about Lord Mandelson:

"Members will be aware of comments in the media regarding the arrest of Lord Mandelson. To prevent any inaccurate speculation, I would like to confirm that upon receipt of information, I felt it was relevant to pass this on to the Metropolitan police in good faith, as is my duty and responsibility. It is regrettable that this rapidly ended up in the media. As this is a live investigation, Members will understand that it would not be appropriate to make any further comment, and I caution Members from doing so."​



Mr. Hoyle told the police a "local source" in the British Virgin Islands believed Lord Mandelson planned to travel there. As a result, the British police deemed Lord Mandelson a flight risk and arrested him.

Lord Mandelson's statement:

“Despite a previous agreement between police and my legal team over a voluntary interview in early March, police arrested me because they claimed the Lord Speaker [sic] received information that I was about to flee to the British Virgin Islands and take up permanent residence abroad, leaving Reinaldo [his husband], my family, home and Jock [his dog] behind me.

“I need hardly say complete fiction. The police were told only today that they had to improvise an arrest. The question is, who or what is behind this?”

archive.ph

‘Commons Speaker reported Mandelson as flight risk to Met Police’

archived 25 Feb 2026 11:25:12 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph
www.thetimes.com

Commons Speaker reported Peter Mandelson as flight risk to Met Police

Sir Lindsay Hoyle was the source that led officers to arrest the peer over claims he was about to flee to the British Virgin Islands
www.thetimes.com www.thetimes.com


A question for those more familiar with UK parliamentary conventions: Isn't the (officially apolitical and neutral) Speaker of the House of Commons personally passing information about a former Member of the House of Lords to the police an unorthodox intervention?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
Questions about British Styles and Titles 4: Feb 2026 -
Replies
16
Views
2K
Tatiana Maria
Tatiana Maria
Marengo
British Royal Family Current Events 12: May 2025 -
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
5K
Lord-of-the-Manor
Lord-of-the-Manor
Marengo
Spain State Visits/Official Visits: General Discussion 2: Feb 2026 -
Replies
9
Views
891
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
  • Sticky
King Felipe's Current Events 7, January 2026 -
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
General Discussion about Royal Residences 3: Dec 2025 -
Replies
14
Views
2K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom