Equality (Titles) Bill Opinion Piece by Rafe Heydel-Mankoo

1

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo, 21 Ennismore Gardens, London, SW7 1AB. M: 0794 000 5695; E: [email protected]; W: www.heydel-mankoo.com

EQUALITY (TITLES) BILL

[HL] 2013-2014

Opinion By

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo BA (Hons), LL.B, MA

Editor, Burke’s World Orders of Knighthood & Merit

Co-Author, Our House: Reflections on Representation &

Reform in the House of Lords

Research Associate, ResPublica

www.heydel-mankoo.com

DECEMBER 2013

2


TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Introduction …………………………………………………… p.3

Incorrect Definitions ………………………………………….. p.4

Undesirable/Unintended Consequences ……………………... p.4

Succession to the Crown and the Human Rights Act ………. p.5

Unresolved Issues of Equality ………………………………... p.5

PART ONE:

Hereditary Peerages & Private Law ………………………… p.6

Spanish Law Enforcing Gender Neutral Succession to Titles p.6

Prevention of Extinction of Peerages ………………………... p.7

Petition by Incumbent to Alter Succession …………………. p.8

PART TWO:

Husbands and Same-Sex Married Partners ………………… p.10

CONCLUSION

Conclusion …………………………………………………….. p.12

About the Author ……………………………………………... p.13

3


EQUALITY (TITLES) BILL

[HL] 2013-2014

Opinion By

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo BA (Hons), LL.B, MA

Editor, Burke’s World Orders of Knighthood & Merit

Co-Author, Reflections on Representation & Reform in the House of Lords

Research Associate, ResPublica

December 2013

Sponsored by the elected hereditary peer Lord Lucas (12th Baron Lucas and 8th Lord

Dingwall) The Equality (Titles) Bill is a private member’s bill to:

“make provision for the succession of female heirs to hereditary titles; for husbands and civil

partners of those receiving honours to be allowed to use equivalent honorary titles to those

available to wives; and for connected purposes”.

The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords on 14 May 2013 and passed Second Reading

on 25 October 2013. The Bill has now entered the Committee stage, where it is undergoing a

line by line examination before the Committee of the Whole House.

In summary, the Bill deals with two issues:

1. Female succession to hereditary peerages and baronetcies

2. The conferral of titles on the husbands and same-sex married partners of titled

persons.

For many interested parties, the first issue can be subdivided into two similar but separate

issues:

1 (a): Female succession to hereditary peerages and baronetcies to prevent sex

discrimination.

1 (b): Female succession to hereditary peerages and baronetcies to prevent the

extinction of peerages and baronetcies due to lack of male heirs.

The Equality (Titles) Bill is clearly well-intentioned, and its proponents, undoubtedly inspired

by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (which, once/if it comes into effect, will change the

law of succession to the British throne from male-preference primogeniture to gender-neutral

absolute primogeniture), were clearly motivated by laudable principles of fairness and

equality.

Such motivation is admirable, but it does nothing to alter the fact that The Equality (Titles)

Bill is fundamentally unsound and suffers from poor drafting and a failure to comprehend the

complexity of the baronetage, the peerage and peerage law.

4


INCORRECT DEFINITIONS:

The following terms are used incorrectly in the Bill and, in three cases, in the Bill’s subtitle:

1. Civil Partners / Civil Partnerships:

The Bill refers to “husbands and civil partners”. This is incorrect. “Civil partners” are

not married and, as explained in this paper, for legal reasons the issue of hereditary

titles only arises for married partners. The Bill should refer to “husbands and same-

sex married partners”.

2. Courtesy Titles:

The drafters of the Bill do not appear to be able to distinguish between courtesy titles

and the legal title borne by the wife of a peer. Although not a peeress in her own right,

the wife of a peer is a peeress who shares a life estate in her husband’s dignity. She

bears a legal title – it is not held by courtesy.

3. Honorary Titles:

As explained in point 2 above, the titles borne by wives of peers are neither honorary

nor courtesy titles.

4. Hereditary Titles:

The drafters have failed to restrictively define “hereditary titles” in “S. 11

Interpretation” in order to exclude titles such as those borne by hereditary office

bearers.

5. Peerage of Ireland:

Some consideration should be given to whether the Peerage of Ireland should be

included in the main body of the Bill. The Peerage of Ireland appears only in “S. 11

Interpretation”, but reference is made elsewhere in the Bill to the peerages of

England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES:

S.7 (3): “Where an incumbent holds more than one hereditary peerage or hereditary title, the

provisions of this Act shall apply separately to each such peerage or title.”

As currently phrased, S. 7 (3) could be read to imply that a peer in possession of more than

one peerage, for example a peer who possesses a dukedom and an earldom, could pass his

dukedom to his son and his earldom to his daughter (or vice-versa) simply by choosing to

petition the Lord Chancellor to alter the succession for one but not the other. This could

potentially lead to a proliferation of titles. This is an undesirable, and possibly unintended,

consequence.

5


SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT:

As an aside, it is worth stating that comparisons between the succession to the Crown and

succession to hereditary peerages are unhelpful. The Crown does not follow the rules of

peerage succession law (most peerages are guided by agnatic primogeniture to the exclusion

of females) – if it did, we would not have a Queen on the throne. More importantly, with only

a very small number of hereditary peers remaining in Parliament, the hereditary peerage has

ceased to play any significant role in national life.

Today, unlike succession to the Crown, succession to hereditary peerages (and certainly to

baronetcies) is a matter that is really only of relevance to directly involved individuals in the

families concerned. This reality further underscores the fact that, unlike the Crown,

hereditary peerages should not be treated as matters of public law – it is time to accept that

hereditary peerages and baronetcies belong solely to the world of private law. This must be

our starting point.

We also must not fall into the trap of accepting or assuming the inevitability of the current

system of hereditary titles falling foul of The Human Rights Act on the grounds of sex

discrimination. Challengers would first need to demonstrate that the inheritance of a titular

dignity is a human right. Hereditary peerages and baronetcies are dignities granted by the

Crown. As they carry no value, are not tied to the tenure of land, convey no office or position

(save for a miniscule number of exceptions), and cannot be compared with the rights to vote,

marry or have an education, it is far from certain whether the courts would agree that they fall

under human rights legislation.

UNRESOLVED ISSUES OF EQUALITY:

For a Bill that is clearly motivated by a desire to achieve equality and justice, a number of

significant issues remain unresolved:

1. Why should it be up to an incumbent to decide whether or not a peerage title will

descend by gender-neutral primogeniture?

2. Where is the equality for the daughter or female heir of an incumbent who, for

whatever reason, chooses not to change the succession in favour of females?

3. Where is the justice for the long-standing male heir who is suddenly dispossessed by

the incumbent?

4. Where is the equality for the sister whose younger brother has already, perhaps even

recently, succeeded to the peerage?

5. Why should the “oldest surviving child legitimately born” inherit in preference to an

older surviving illegitimate child?

6. Why should age be a factor in deciding succession rights?

7. Why should an adopted child be excluded from the succession altogether?

8. Will the child of a hereditary peer in a same-sex marriage inherit the peerage if his/her

mother was a surrogate mother?

6


PART ONE:

HEREDITARY PEERAGES and PRIVATE LAW:

In England, hereditary peerages have been held to be inalienable incorporeal hereditaments

(intangible property) the descents of which are governed exclusively by the words of

limitation set out in their original grants (usually by Letters Patent). [Viscountess Rhondda

Claim [1922] 2 AC 339]. Only an Act of Parliament can amend the Letters Patent governing

succession to a peerage.

As hereditary peerages and baronetcies are items of private law, it seems wholly unjust that

the rightful heirs should be deprived of their lawful inheritance, as stipulated in the terms of

the original grants.

Peerages and baronetcies may not be willed at the wish of an incumbent and, save for cases

of inevitable extinction, it would be extremely unwise and unfair for Parliament to revisit

historic grants to alter the long-established legal terms of limitation, when to do so would

deprive current and future lawful heirs of their rights of inheritance. There is certainly a case

to be made for altering the succession to peerages and baronetcies that are on the verge of

extinction due to a lack of heirs – but they must be the exception to the rule. In no other

instances should Parliament revisit historic grants of titles.

As a nation Britain is at the cutting edge of social progress; we appreciate the need to

modernise and evolve -- but we are also proud of our institutions and our traditions. This

country has a proud legal and cultural heritage, and our citizens still believe in justice,

decency and fair play. To dispossess lawful heirs of their rightful inheritance by changing the

established terms of a legal grant – one that we must assume was agreed to by the original

recipient – flies firmly in the face of those beliefs.

Of course, there can be little argument that future grants of hereditary peerages or baronetcies

should be guided by the principle of gender neutrality; but to alter historic grants would not

only challenge their original legal intention, it would also deprive their rightful living and

future heirs of their lawful inheritance. Parliament should respect our historic tradition of

succession to hereditary peerages and baronetcies and abide by the wording of each grant,

save for those titles that are on the verge of extinction.

Enforcing universal gender equality on existing hereditary peerages and baronetcies would

inevitably lead to the disastrous family feuds that have afflicted the Spanish nobility in recent

years.

SPANISH LAW ENFORCING GENDER NEUTRAL SUCCESSION TO TITLES

(2006):

In 2006, although Spain’s highest courts had rejected the claim of 20 Spanish women that the

male primogeniture succession laws for Spanish titles ran contrary to equality laws, the

Government of Spain introduced gender-neutral succession. Spain’s Law 33/2006 stipulates

that "men and women have an equal right of succession to grandeeship titles of nobility in

7


Spain, and no person may be given preference in the normal order of succession for reasons

of gender".

The abolition of male primogeniture has split the Spanish nobility, in many cases pitting

brother against sister, father against daughter, wife against husband and even family branches

against each another. The law has caused a group of nobles to split from their traditional

representative body, the Deputation of Grandees, in order to form a separate organisation,

the Spanish Nobles’ Association, which they hope will be able to better advocate for their

case and challenge the new law.

Quoted in an English-language newspaper, the Spanish Count of Bilbao stated: “There is a

split. Some of the oldest families are involved…. I don't think it is fair that my son, who grew

up expecting the title, should not get it."

The disastrous mess we see in Spain arose from the decision to apply absolute primogeniture

to existing titles that already had clear lines of succession with identifiable heirs. The turmoil

could have been avoided if the law had been drafted to apply exclusively to future grants of

noble titles (in other words, to grants made after the date on which the law came into effect).

I’m afraid that many British families will also be split and torn apart if similar ill-considered

blanket legislation is enacted here.

PREVENTION OF EXTINCTION OF PEERAGES:

Reading the debate around The Equality (Titles) Bill in Hansard, it is clear that many of the

peers in favour of this Bill are motivated in large part by concern over the extinction of their

own peerages due to the lack of a male heir. Their concern is real and one can easily see why

this concern would lead them to support this legislation, despite its wider, and less desirable,

consequences. Peers and baronets have every reason to be proud of their heritage and their

ancestors’ contributions to national life, and it can be distressing for a baronet or peeress to

think that a long-held title (perhaps several centuries old) will be extinguished upon his/her

death.

I think the majority of the members of both Houses of Parliament would be able to

understand the worry of baronets, peers and peeresses who face this unpleasant situation. I

strongly believe that Parliament should deal with the issue of extinction – however, the

remedy is not found in this Bill, nor does it lie with the universal introduction of absolute

primogeniture into the succession to hereditary peerages and baronetcies.

Titles that are on the verge of extinction due to an absence of males in the line of succession

can and should be altered by Parliament, either by special remainder to the existing Letters

Patent (as for the Marlborough dukedom in 1706) or, alternatively, by granting a new title of

the same name but with a new remainder (as for the Fife dukedom in 1900). In both cases, I

would expect that the new remainder would be based upon absolute primogeniture.

Given the lack of new hereditary peerages and baronetcies, this remedy for individual titles

on the verge of extinction would strengthen the hereditary peerage and baronetage as a whole

8


(which would otherwise face the real risk of withering into insignificance). Extinctions can

be prevented without opening up the entire system of hereditary peerages and baronetcies to

absolute primogeniture.

PETITION BY INCUMBENT TO ALTER SUCCESSION:

A bizarre novelty of this Bill, which distinguishes it from the recent Spanish legislation, is the

proposal to permit an incumbent, at his/her discretion, to petition the Lord Chancellor to

approve his/her request to alter the succession to a title. Such an arrangement seems very odd

and has the potential to be monumentally destructive.

A peer may disclaim his peerage for himself under the Peerage Act, 1963 but he does not

have the power to abolish it or disclaim it for his legal heirs and successors. A peerage may

not be willed and it is not for a peer to do with as he/she wishes. An incumbent should not

have the power to decide succession issues at his/her own whim – particularly when the issue

is as fundamental as gender rights.

Whilst it is clear that this Bill would bring about the same family feuds and splits that have so

terribly afflicted the Spanish nobility in recent years, by giving the incumbent the

discretionary power to decide whether or not to petition the Lord Chancellor to change the

succession to his/her peerage, this Bill could potentially have even more destructive

consequences.

The drafters of the Bill appear to assume that all incumbents are chivalrous and decent, and

that they naturally have the best interests of their heirs (and titles) at heart. Obviously this is

unrealistic. It does not take a dramatist to conjure up all sorts of scenarios in which families

are torn apart by bitterness, jealousy and envy. Human nature being what it is, some heirs

would conspire against their “competitor” and engage in reputation sabotage in order to court

the incumbent’s affections. An incumbent could also easily play one heir off against another,

dangling the peerage in front of their noses in order to have his/her bidding done and advance

his/her own personal agenda.

The proposal advocated in this section of the Bill would lead to unfairness, inequality, lack of

consistency, bitterness and crippling uncertainty for heirs and potential heirs.

Even in a very unexciting family situation, one can easily see how unfair and unsatisfactory

the effects of this Bill would be. Imagine the scenario of two cousins, an earl and a duke,

each of whom has 2 children, a daughter (both aged 55) and a son (both aged 52). On the day

the new law is enacted, the earl chooses to petition the Lord Chancellor to alter the

succession to his earldom in favour of his daughter. The earl gets his wish. The duke does

nothing (he may have disapproved of changing the succession or he may simply have

intended to deal with the matter at a later date, both situations are equally relevant).

Tragically, both the duke and the earl die in a hunting accident a few months later. The earl’s

daughter succeeds him and the duke’s son succeeds him.

9


At least two people seem to have been unjustly treated in this scenario. Has the duke’s

daughter received fair and equal treatment? Her cousin is now a peeress simply because their

fathers acted differently. Has the earl’s son received fair and equal treatment? After all, the

earl’s son has been waiting, and preparing, to take over from his father for over 50 years. He

has been trained in estate management but has no estate to manage and no other career

option.

If we add the earl’s illegitimate 57 year old son to the scenario, what then? Can this Bill

really claim to stand for equality when it restricts the succession to the “oldest surviving

legitimate child”? Would Parliamentarians not agree that, in the 21st century, favouring

legitimacy over illegitimacy is as discriminatory as favouring men over women? Similarly, is

age discrimination not as relevant as sex discrimination? Why shouldn’t younger children

succeed?

What about equality for adopted children? Currently adopted children may not inherit a

peerage but, following a Royal Warrant of 2004, they have been able to use a courtesy title.

Should we regard this as a step on the road to true equality for adopted children? If not, why

not? What is Parliament implying about adopted children by denying them the same

inheritance rights as biological children? In the scenario above, for example, if the earl also

had an adopted daughter of 59 years of age, is it fair, on the grounds of equality, that she

should be prevented from succeeding to his peerage?

What are the implications of this legislation for the children of a hereditary peer or baronet in

a same-sex marriage? The child may be adopted or may be born to a surrogate mother. Will a

distinction be drawn between the two? Would either be eligible to succeed? If not, why not?

If we believe in true equality, surely we would draw no distinction.

I raise these unresolved questions of equality not to offer any solution but to point out that

“equality” is a complicated concept that is open to numerous interpretations. Imposing one

contemporary notion of equality on to an historic institution can lead to unintended

consequences of a far more unfair, unjust and unequal nature than is currently the case.

10


PART TWO

HUSBANDS AND SAME-SEX MARRIED PARTNERS:

The Bill proposes that “civil partners of those receiving honours [are] to be allowed to use

equivalent honorary titles to those available to wives”

Perhaps the most egregious error found in this Bill is the incorrect use of the terms “courtesy

titles” and “honorary titles”. The drafters of the Bill do not appear to realise that, unlike their

children, the wives of peers do not bear courtesy titles but, in fact, hold a life estate in their

husband’s dignity. As such they are peeresses – their titles are legal and not held by courtesy.

This principle was clearly established in Earl Cowley v Countess Cowley [1901] AC 450. To

quote:

When in 1895 her husband became Earl Cowley she

acquired an estate for life in his dignity. That has been the

law ever since Coke's time, and it is not, I believe,

disputed. Her life estate was not determinable on the death

of her husband, but was determinable on a second marriage

with a commoner. So long as her life estate in the Earldom

was undetermined she was entitled to the honour and

dignity of a peeress and to the name attached to it.

In Precedence in England and Wales (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), the noted scholar

G.D. Squibb writes:

[I]t has long been recognized that a wife does not lose her

precedence on the death of her husband, nor does she lose

it by divorce. If she is a peeress by marriage she retains her

title and the privileges of peerage until she marries a man

who is not a peer.

I must confess to some amazement that proponents of this poorly drafted Bill believe that the

honorific “The Honourable” is an “equivalent” match for the various titles of the peerage,

baronetage and knightage. British society appreciates the distinction between the titles of

Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron, Baronet and Knight – I can see no logic behind the

decision to uniformly style the married partners of these title holders as “The Honourable”.

Firstly, “The Honourable” is a title with its own specific uses. Within the peerage, “The

Hon.” is an honorific which is used by the sons and daughters of viscounts and barons and the

younger sons of earls. Were this Bill to be enacted, we could see, for example, the younger

son of a duke/duchess styled “Lord” whilst his parent (the duke’s/duchess’s married partner)

is the lower-ranking “Honourable.”

Far worse, however, is the unfairness and inequality inherent in this proposal. If the drafters

wish to have true equality for married partners of peers, whatever their gender or sexual

orientation, then they should deal with this matter honestly and fairly. Given that it is well-

established in law that the wives of peers are peeresses who hold a life estate in their

husband’s dignity, surely equality will only be achieved when the husbands and same-sex

wives of peers/peeresses hold the same status, irrespective of gender. This seems irrefutable.

11


As currently drafted, the Bill’s proposals to deal with the husbands and married partners of

peers/peeresses are illogical and do nothing to achieve equality. If anything, the uniform use

of “The Hon.” for husbands and same-sex married partners reinforces inequality between

wives of peers/baronets and their alternative counterparts.

That being said, another major error that appears in the Bill is the repeated incorrect reference

to “civil partners” and “civil partnerships”. The distinction between civil partnerships and

same-sex marriages is extremely important. A partner can only share in the dignity of a

peerage if he or she is married to a peer/peeress. This applies to both heterosexual and

homosexual couples. For a partner to hold a life estate in the dignity of his/her partner’s

peerage, it is necessary that they be married to each other. Civil partners and unmarried

heterosexual couples are not married and consequently the issue of titles, the subject of this

Bill, is of no relevance to them.

As the spouse of a sovereign is normally “Queen Consort” or “Prince Consort” (it is natural

to assume that in future the husband of a queen will be styled “King Consort”), the most

logical solution would be to retain this template for all peerage titles. Thus, husbands and

wives of peers/peeresses would be officially Duke Consort / Duchess Consort, Marquess

Consort / Marchioness Consort, Earl Consort / Countess Consort, Baron Consort / Baroness

Consort. However, much as we never referred to King George VI’s wife as “Queen Consort”

(preferring Queen Elizabeth), still less to the Duke of Edinburgh as “Prince Consort”

(preferring Prince Philip), so too it would be expected that these “official” titles would not be

used often. Those married to peers below the rank of Duke would be styled “Lord Surname”.

Of course, married partners would not be entitled to wear any insignia of rank that was not

theirs as of right (i.e. no baronets’ badges for partners of baronets).

Husband of Female Male Same-Sex Spouse Female Same-Sex Spouse

Duke Consort (Duke) Duke Consort (Duke) Duchess Consort

Marquess Consort (Lord) Marquess Consort (Lord) Marchioness Consort (Lady)

Earl Consort (Lord) Earl Consort (Lord) Countess Consort (Lady)

Viscount Consort (Lord) Viscount Consort Viscountess Consort (Lady)

Baron Consort (Lord) Baron Consort Lady Consort

Sir (husband of Baronetss) Sir (husband of Baronet) Lady (wife of Baronetess)

Sir (husband of Dame) Sir (husband of Knight) Lady (wife of Dame)

There can be no doubt that such titles sound strange, and the idea of two married dukes or

two countesses probably stranger – but such is the case with all novel proposals and, if we are

concerned with equality, surely there is no more logical answer. The widows of peers are

called “dowagers” (“The Dowager Duchess of Downton”) and so we should have little reason

to find “consort” any more difficult to accept (“The Countess Consort of Cliveden”).

This is a radical suggestion but its purpose, along with the various questions posed earlier in

this paper, is to demonstrate how far the Bill would need to go to truly achieve “equality”.

12


CONCLUSION:

With their ranking and precedence, the hereditary peerage and the baronetage are naturally

unequal. Unlike succession to the Crown, succession to hereditary peerages and the

baronetage is part of private law and consequently cannot be regarded as an issue of similar

public interest (notwithstanding the requirement for acts of Parliament to alter the succession

to titles).

As it holds no tangible value or use, possession of a title cannot, in my view, be equated with

a human right. Equality is a multi-faceted concept open to numerous forms of interpretation

(sex, age, relationship, biology, legitimacy etc). Imposing one contemporary notion of

equality (gender equality) in preference to all other notions of equality is, in itself, unequal

and unfair. Why should gender equality rank above age equality? Where is the justice for the

current male heirs who will be dispossessed after a lifetime of preparation?

Whilst any future grants of hereditary peerages and baronetcies should certainly incorporate

gender-neutral inheritance rights, the intentions expressed in historic grants should be

followed according to our longstanding custom and legal tradition. The well-established

historic entitlement of rightful heirs to their lawful inheritance must trump contemporary (and

selective) notions of equality.

Concern over the extinction of specific peerages and baronetcies due to the lack of a male

heir is a real concern that Parliament must address. Female succession to peerages and

baronetcies at risk of extinction can be dealt with as cases arise and, as explained above, can

be remedied by special remainder or a new grant without instituting a system of universal

absolute primogeniture across the system.

Husbands and the same-sex married partners of titled persons are not adequately served by

the uniform application of “The Hon”, which fails to take into account their different ranks

and does little to achieve the Bill’s stated desire: equality of status with wives of peers.

13


About the Author: Rafe Heydel-Mankoo www.heydel-mankoo.com An expert in protocol, the Crown and British institutions, Rafe Heydel-Mankoo is the co-editor of

the critically-acclaimed Burke’s World Orders of Knighthood & Merit and has advised various

governments on policy matters. He is a trustee of the Canadian Royal Heritage Trust and a

research associate at the leading British public policy think tank ResPublica.

Rafe is a leading royal commentator and is a popular choice with international media, providing

expert analysis, interviews and commentary. Rafe appears regularly on television, radio and in

the print media in Britain (BBC, Sky, Channel 4, etc.), Canada (CBC, CTV, Global, etc.), the

United States (Fox, ABC, NPR, etc.) and further afield.

Our House: Representation in the House of Lords

In 2012, in opposition to the Coalition Government’s Draft Bill on the Reform of the House of

Lords, Rafe and Philip Blond, director of ResPublica, spearheaded a radical reform alternative for

Britain’s Upper House.

Bringing together some of Britain’s leading thinkers, including Prof. Roger Scruton, Lord Low of

Dalston, Frank Field MP and the Rt. Revd. Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester, Convenor of the

Lords Spiritual, Rafe and Philip Blond produced a landmark publication: Our House:

Representation in the House of Lords, which was formally launched in the Houses of Parliament

in February 2012. (http://respublica.org.uk/item/Our-House-Reflections-on-Representation-and-

Reform-in-the-House-of-Lords )

The publication, the radical conclusion of which was co-authored by Rafe and Philip, was very

well received and was presented as evidence for consideration by the Joint Committee on Lords

Reform.

Rafe is a recipient of HM The Queen's Golden (2002) and Diamond (2012) Jubilee Medals

(Canada), having been nominated for his "contribution to monarchical studies ... and [his]

outstanding media commentary enhancing Canadians' understanding of the Crown over many

years."

Contact Details:

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo 21 Ennismore Gardens London, SW7 1AB M: 07940 005695 E: [email protected] W: www.heydel-mankoo.com T: www.twitter.com/RafHM Y: www.youtube.com/rafalhm

http://www.heydel-mankoo.com/

http://respublica.org.uk/item/Our-House-Reflections-on-Representation-and-Reform-in-the-House-of-Lords




mailto:[email protected]

http://www.heydel-mankoo.com/

http://www.twitter.com/RafHM

http://www.youtube.com/rafalhm

Equality (Titles) Bill Opinion Piece by Rafe Heydel-Mankoo

Documents

Transcript of Equality (Titles) Bill Opinion Piece by Rafe Heydel-Mankoo