Jason Loch
jasonloch.bsky.social
Jason Loch
@jasonloch.bsky.social
78 followers 29 following 130 posts
I am a historian of the British constitution whose work focuses on the Crown, the House of Lords, and the Church of England. You can read my blog here: venerablepuzzle.wordpress.com.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
It wasn't a courtesy title. His peerages were conferred on him by Letters Patent and he had a seat in the House of Lords until 1999.
I could see how the traditional arguments against disclosing honors-related material would still apply. If the decision-makers need a safe space in which to discuss the merits of giving someone an honor, one could argue they also need a space in which to discuss the merits of taking one away.
On a side note, s. 37(1)(b) of the FOIA states that information is exempt from disclosure if it relates to "the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity" though this is not an absolute exemption and so there is a public interest test.
Also, some officers of the Orders are members of the Royal Family. For example, the Queen is Grand Master of the Order of the British Empire, the Princess Royal is Grand Master of the Royal Victorian Order, and the Prince of Wales is Great Master of the Order of the Bath.
Nope. In practice, the administration of the Orders is handled by the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood which is part of the Lord Chamberlain's Office.
Letters Patent annulling the appointment of a Knight Bachelor are an exception to this rule. Those *are* handled by the Crown Office since they pass under the Great Seal. 2/2 cbaionline.org/corpus/items...
Letters Patent - Revocation of a Knighthood [2012-02-01] · Corpus of British Administrative Instruments
cbaionline.org
We may never see the instruments removing Andrew from the Order of the Garter and the Royal Victorian Order. They were likely prepared and countersigned by officers of the relevant Orders without passing through the Crown Office. 1/2
Thank you! I've seen a video of his introduction on YouTube, so it's interesting to see the written ceremonial.
Recently added to the Corpus of British Administrative Instruments: Queen Elizabeth II's Letters Patent granting the titular dignity of Prince to the Duke of Edinburgh. cbaionline.org/corpus/items...
Letters Patent - Titular Dignity of Prince [1957-02-22] · Corpus of British Administrative Instruments
cbaionline.org
Recently added to the Corpus of British Administrative Instruments: Queen Elizabeth II's 1960 Declaration stating that certain of her descendants would bear the name of "Mountbatten-Windsor." cbaionline.org/corpus/items...
Order in Council - Recording Queen Elizabeth II's Declaration Regarding the Name Mountbatten-Windsor [1960-02-08] · Corpus of British Administrative Instruments
cbaionline.org
I've been working on a curated collection of Letters Patent, Royal Warrants, Ministerial Submissions, and similar material called the Corpus of British Administrative Instruments. 1/2 cbaionline.org/corpus/
Corpus of British Administrative Instruments
cbaionline.org
Although the PCC is involved in the appointment process, the Ecclesiastical Secretary in the Cabinet Office ultimately decides which name is recommended to the Lord Chancellor. It's a substantive role rather than a rubber stamp.
I agree. On a side note, while not reflective of his legal acumen, I stumbled upon this anecdote about Tristram that legitimately made me chuckle.
The teste clause ("In Testimony whereof We cause these Our Letters to be made Patent") also differs from the more common "In Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent." 3/3
The main difference is the warranty ("By the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain"). This reflects the fact that the King is not involved in making these appointments and the Great Seal is affixed by the Lord Chancellor without the authority of a Sign-Manual Warrant. 2/3
The Lord Chancellor makes a number of ecclesiastical appointments including presentations to Crown benefices valued at less than £20 in The King's Book. Here's what an instrument of appointment to one of these benefices looks like. 1/3
Tristram may have been chosen because he was connected to the Diocese of Canterbury through his role as Commissary General.
These figures come from "Return of Fees paid by Archbishop of Canterbury on his Promotion to Primacy," House of Commons Papers, LIII.7, (1883). 2/2
Becoming Archbishop of Canterbury used to be an expensive proposition. Edward White Benson had to pay a total of £885/5/6. According to The National Archives' currency converter, that is the equivalent of approximately £58,591.66! 1/2
Yes; if you DM me your email address, I'll send it to you. I can also send you the Vicar-General's judgment from the Bishop of Gloucester's confirmation if you like.
Before the Church Commissioners, the Crown's guardianship of the temporalities could be quite lucrative. There were a number of cases in the middle ages and early modern period where the Monarch deliberately prolonged a vacancy in order to benefit from the diocese's revenues. 3/3