I liked Jeremy Hardy's comment on the News Quiz when the story originally broke last year: ``It's like one of those lovely human interest stories that makes you go `aaahhh...' and really brightens up your day''.
They can in principle take away hereditary titles. They can take away anything. They're not likely to - peers have never been an entirely innocent crew. Where would you stop once you'd started?
I'm not sure. People have been stripped of knighthoods and other honours for similarly serious crimes - fraud is certainly sufficient. I'm not quite sure why Archer still has his (life) peerage - it may be that there are legal technicalities there because it confers membership of the legislature, or perhaps the Life Peerages Act just doesn't stipulate any procedures or mechanisms whereby a criminal peer might be demoted.
Baronetcies are odd things - basically hereditary knighthoods, they don't confer any political rights or privileges. It may be that he could be stripped of his title, but that his eldest son (if any) would inherit it upon his death - or possibly the title would just be abolished outright.
I think what's happening is that peers with serious convictions (criminal ones, that is) won't be allowed to sit in the House. From this year sometime, probably.
Yeah, but call me bitter and twisted ... it's a plea bargain. I'd personally liked to have seen him dragged through the courts, every dark corner of his business dealings fully shaken out; in particular I'd like to know exactly how much of a hand Mummy had in things, just to extinguish any last lingering thought of Saint Margaret. And because, to my mind, yet again Marky has had his nuts pulled out the fire just when life was getting really interesting.
And a couple of years in South African jails might have been interesting for him.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zvi and
no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 07:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 07:51 pm (UTC)I wonder if they'll take away his baronetcy.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 08:25 pm (UTC)I would certainly hope so, but it's hereditary, isn't it? Can they take those away? Or at any rate, I'd assumed Archer's was a life peerage.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 08:28 pm (UTC)Where would you stop once you'd started?
Date: 2005-01-12 10:26 pm (UTC)Re: Where would you stop once you'd started?
Date: 2005-01-12 10:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 08:51 pm (UTC)Baronetcies are odd things - basically hereditary knighthoods, they don't confer any political rights or privileges. It may be that he could be stripped of his title, but that his eldest son (if any) would inherit it upon his death - or possibly the title would just be abolished outright.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 11:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 08:23 pm (UTC)And a couple of years in South African jails might have been interesting for him.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 09:49 pm (UTC)This occurred to me as well. The real shame is that Maggie seems to be ga-ga enough that she may not realise the full disgrace that her son is in.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-12 10:32 pm (UTC)"Shock in court as a Thatcher tells the truth!"
no subject
Date: 2005-01-13 12:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-13 09:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-13 09:50 am (UTC)