Centuries-old tradition ends as Parliament votes to remove hereditary aristocrats from the upper chamber

Britain is set to end one of the oldest traditions in its political system after Parliament voted to remove hereditary nobles from the country’s upper legislative chamber.

Members of the House of Lords agreed this week to stop blocking legislation passed by the House of Commons that will remove dozens of hereditary aristocrats who inherited seats in Parliament along with their titles.

The move marks the final stage of a reform process that began more than two decades ago and will bring to an end a system that has existed for around 700 years.

Don’t miss the latest headlines from Thailand and around the world. Get the Asean Now Briefing newsletter, delivered daily. Sign up here.

Government ministers say the change is designed to make Britain’s legislature more democratic and merit-based.

Ending an “archaic” system

Nick Thomas-Symonds, a senior government minister, said the reform ends what he described as an outdated political principle.

“Our parliament should always be a place where talents are recognized and merit counts,” he said.

“It should never be a gallery of old boys’ networks, nor a place where titles, many of which were handed out centuries ago, hold power over the will of the people.”

Historically, members of the House of Lords included bishops, appointed life peers and hereditary nobles such as dukes, earls and viscounts. The hereditary peers inherited their seats through aristocratic titles passed down through generations.

Critics have long argued that allowing unelected aristocrats to sit in Parliament is incompatible with modern democracy.

Reform decades in the making

Major reforms to the House of Lords began in 1999, when most hereditary peers were removed from the chamber. However, a small number remained, allowing them to continue participating in legislative debates and votes.

It was another 25 years before the government of Keir Starmer introduced legislation to remove the remaining hereditary members.

The change will take effect once Charles III grants royal assent to the bill — a largely ceremonial step that formally turns legislation into law.

The remaining hereditary peers are expected to leave the chamber at the end of the current parliamentary session this spring.

Some compromises were made during negotiations, including provisions allowing a limited number of hereditary members to remain by being converted into appointed “life peers.”

Scrutiny role remains important

Despite criticism, the House of Lords plays a significant role in Britain’s legislative process.

The chamber reviews and scrutinizes laws passed by the House of Commons, often suggesting amendments and raising concerns about proposed legislation.

Supporters say its members often bring expertise from fields such as law, science and business, allowing the chamber to provide detailed examination of complex policies.

However, critics argue that the body remains too large and insufficiently accountable to the public.

Renewed scrutiny after political controversy

Debate about reforming the Lords intensified earlier this year following controversy surrounding Peter Mandelson, who resigned from the chamber after revelations about his past friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The case renewed attention on the behavior and accountability of members within the unelected chamber.

While Mandelson’s resignation was not directly related to hereditary peers, it added pressure for broader institutional reform.

Future reforms still uncertain

The Labour government has said it ultimately wants to replace the House of Lords with a second chamber that is more representative of the United Kingdom.

However, previous attempts at major constitutional reform have progressed slowly.

Nicholas True, the opposition Conservative leader in the House of Lords, acknowledged the end of a long tradition but defended the historical role played by hereditary peers.

“So, here we are at the end of well over seven centuries of service by hereditary peers in this Parliament,” he told fellow lawmakers.

“Many thousands of peers served their nation here and thousands of improvements to law were made.”

While the system may soon disappear, True argued that many hereditary peers had served the country faithfully.

The change nevertheless marks a historic turning point for Britain’s political institutions, closing a chapter that stretches back to the medieval origins of Parliament.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

  Adapted by ASEAN Now · Source · 12.03 2026

View full article

It's only taken 700 years . Better late than never I suppose.

When will this happen in Thailand?

Personally I would favour an elected upper chamber of Parlisment, with a similar revising role, elected for a 5 year fixed term using some form of proportional representation.

The current House of Lords, whose members (almost invariably politicians, often failed) are appointed for life is quite bizarre.p

This is a disaster. Hereditary peers have great education, are less corruptible and have life experience to gate keep commoners who won a popularity contest, that was skewed by the ******** press.

1 hour ago, JAG said:

Personally I would favour an elected upper chamber of Parlisment, with a similar revising role, elected for a 5 year fixed term using some form of proportional representation.

The current House of Lords, whose members (almost invariably politicians, often failed) are appointed for life is quite bizarre.p

I agree with your sentiments but still foresee problems.

Imo ideally, the upper chamber would be filled by non-partisan individuals who came from outside of the political arena e.g. eminent economists, industrialists, scientists, etc. However, whether 1) such individuals could be encouraged to put themselves forward in sufficient numbers and 2) the public would vote in sufficient numbers to afford any election validity is debatable.

8 minutes ago, 1tooth said:

This is a disaster. Hereditary peers have great education, are less corruptible and have life experience to gate keep commoners who won a popularity contest, that was skewed by the ******** press.

Oh absolutely dahling!

Jamie Blandford , John Hervey, Lord Lucan, Lord Charles Brocket.........great educations, straight as dies, marvellous life experiences.

Shining examples all!

😄😄😄

13 minutes ago, RayC said:

I agree with your sentiments but still foresee problems.

Imo ideally, the upper chamber would be filled by non-partisan individuals who came from outside of the political arena e.g. eminent economists, industrialists, scientists, etc. However, whether 1) such individuals could be encouraged to put themselves forward in sufficient numbers and 2) the public would vote in sufficient numbers to afford any election validity is debatable.

I honestly think that is, without sneering, utopian. The political establishment would very soon find a way to get a grip of candidates.

A fixed term would allow members (Lords?) more freedom to defer from party policy, and proportional representation would result in a more representative house, maybe even more independents? Ideally there would be no "whipping system", although I am not sure how that could be done!

The most important aim must be to avoid it becoming an echo chamber for The House of Commons. One great advantage of an elected system is that it would prevent long standing (sitting) MPs who have been rejected by their constituents from being promptly "booted upstairs'. In that way, with the fixed term idea, an MP who has been so rejected would have to wait some time before being re-elected. One rule that would help would be that a sitting MP, could not be a candidate for the upper house - it would hamper some of the "seamless transitions " beloved of party managers.

Great now let's move onto Charlie and his mistress and the "Dolittles" (QE2 words for them) workshy Wales.

Just now, beautifulthailand99 said:

Great now let's move onto Charlie and his mistress and the "Dolittles" (QE2 words for them) workshy Wales.

And what would your idea of a replacement be?

I assume a lookalike Trump etc!

Why not get rid of the bishops too?

12 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

Why not get rid of the bishops too?

Who would there be left to represent moralistic paedophiles?

37 minutes ago, JAG said:

I honestly think that is, without sneering, utopian. The political establishment would very soon find a way to get a grip of candidates.

A fixed term would allow members (Lords?) more freedom to defer from party policy, and proportional representation would result in a more representative house, maybe even more independents? Ideally there would be no "whipping system", although I am not sure how that could be done!

The most important aim must be to avoid it becoming an echo chamber for The House of Commons. One great advantage of an elected system is that it would prevent long standing (sitting) MPs who have been rejected by their constituents from being promptly "booted upstairs'. In that way, with the fixed term idea, an MP who has been so rejected would have to wait some time before being re-elected. One rule that would help would be that a sitting MP, could not be a candidate for the upper house - it would hamper some of the "seamless transitions " beloved of party managers.

But unless non-politicians can be encouraged to stand for election, an echo chamber full of former MPs is exactly what the Upper House will become.

The one thing to be said for the current system is that there are, at least some - albeit too few - non-partisan individuals present (cross benchers) who have some achievement to their name other than being a professional politician. We just need more of them.

1 hour ago, 1tooth said:

This is a disaster. Hereditary peers have great education, are less corruptible and have life experience to gate keep commoners who won a popularity contest, that was skewed by the ******** press.

Inbreds with little real life experience ,smug oligarch inheritors of financial leverage derived from insidious manipulation of commercial monopolies, or the Bob Geldof types happily collecting attendance payments while dining on lobster and caviar in the exclusive restaurant ?

Possession of the whimsical right to veto the legislative intent of the lower commoners.

Jolly good ! Let Knights set forth once more to instill the command of an illegitimate King !

48 minutes ago, RayC said:

But unless non-politicians can be encouraged to stand for election, an echo chamber full of former MPs is exactly what the Upper House will become.

The one thing to be said for the current system is that there are, at least some - albeit too few - non-partisan individuals present (cross benchers) who have some achievement to their name other than being a professional politician. We just need more of them.

Yes I agree that is a real problem. That is why I suggest proportional representation, fixed terms out of synch with general elections (perhaps make the term 6 or even 7 years, or reduce it to 3 years?), prevent a whipping system and prevent "seamless progression". That would go some way to breaking the party managers hold, and help encourage the sort of candidates you envisage.

The point of the House of Lords , is to have knowledgeable elders to check and stop bad legislation, with the constraints of a popularity contest every 5 years. Why replicate and select a second house? Just have the house of commons.

"Lord Longford gives me the f***ing horn.

"I reckon it's the way he does his hair, you know... "

Derek and Clive

Well overdue!

Now those ineffective sponges will have to find alternative day care centres they'll have to pay for themselves.

12 hours ago, JAG said:

Yes I agree that is a real problem. That is why I suggest proportional representation, fixed terms out of synch with general elections (perhaps make the term 6 or even 7 years, or reduce it to 3 years?), prevent a whipping system and prevent "seamless progression". That would go some way to breaking the party managers hold, and help encourage the sort of candidates you envisage.

I agree that such an initiative would go some way to breaking the party system in the Lords, but such a system presents major problems in its' own right.

Firstly, there is obviously the question of getting individuals to stand for election. Secondly, there is the problem of getting the public to vote in such elections, especially if they are held at a different time to a GE. Thirdly, how are people expected to be able to make an informed choice, especially if they are voting for a large number of candidates? I wouldn't have known anything about Martin Rees or Sue Black (two cross bench peers) until 10 minutes ago, and personally, I would find it very difficult to choose between the two in any election.

Imo the existing overly partisan system needs reform. However, perhaps a non-partisan Upper House, voted for by an engaged electorate, is a pipe dream of mine. If so, then an alternative based on the one used to appoint Supreme Court judges might be employed.

Will parties still be allowed to sell titles in exchange for 'donations'?