What’s In A Name? Reforming The House of Lady Gardens

- Our Mole in Westminster

The House of Lords is a pretty patriarchal institution; as of the 1st December 2011 only 181 of its 775 members are women (that’s a lowly 23%). 

Still, we’ve come some way since 1958; this was when the first female life peer was permitted to attend – but only after drawn-out objections over where the women would go to the loo. Seriously – the House of Lords is a serious place, where serious issues are discussed.

And this hasn’t changed since the fairer, nose-powdering, weaker sex were allowed into its hallowed halls. Oh no, dear readers.

This is still the only place in the land [DISCLAIMER: Our mole hasn’t actually fact-checked this claim - Ed.], where an hour can be spent revising a dozen or so words in the Financial Services Authority Bill, by such luminaries as Lady Garden and Lady Gardner of Parkes. Is it wrong to snigger? Is it wrong that this hilarious juxtaposition of the sublimely dull and the sublimely ridiculous is the only thing that prevented my ears and eyes shrivelling up in hedgehog-like horror at the paint-dryingness of it all?

Well, actually, it wasn’t the only thing. The other thing that kept me going was devising some rules for these eminent Lords and Ladies on how names should be selected in future. I’m hoping it will catch on.

And before anyone comments, yes, yes, I know they only get to select the part of their titles after the of, (e.g. Lord Browne of Ladyto[w]n???) but frankly, I don’t care. I was bored.

Anyway, here are the rules – and they are draconian. As am I. Right.

1. Go Medieval

Many of our peers appear to have gone for other titles from the lovely, and partially collapsed, feudal system. There is a smattering of Lord Knights, a Lord and (not married or related) Lady King, and even a Baroness Royall (which I personally feel is slightly arrogant).  Shout outs also go to Lord Monks and Lord Goodhart, the latter of whom was probably motivated by adolescent reading of King Arthur. Sadly he is utterly blown out of the water by the peer who alphabetically succeeds him – Lord Goodlad. He was probably bullied at school and thought that a name like that might win him some friends.

2. Pretend to be young (and maybe fun)

The average age of the House of Lords is 69, which is probably an all-time low since they kicked out the hereditaries  under the House of Lords Act of 1999. While this has led to less sleeping in the backbenches, although you can spot one of the old ‘uns having a snooze on Parliamentary TV from time to time, there is still a slightly ‘older’ and more staid image to the House of Lords. Personally I feel they really need to hire some PR and ‘sex’ the place up. In the meantime they’ve appointed some young peers, hats off to Lord Wei of Shoreditch currently the youngest member of the house having been born in 1977 (the oldest member was born in 1917), and promoted some fun and young names. Unfortunately a few of them took the young bit slightly too literally meaning we have four Lords/Ladies Young. These are of Graffham, Hornsey, Norwood Green, and Old Scone (the whips were probably furious she put the old bit in there). Then there are a variety of efforts to be tabled under ‘fun’ names such as Lord Adonis (also can be seen under ‘arrogant’), Lady Jolly, Lord Quirk, Lord Razall and Lord Sharkey. Lord Tope is a favourite of mine as he seems unaware his name is an archaic way of referring to an alcoholic. A few have even gone out of their way to make their name fun to say such as the rhyming Lord Allan of Hallam, which I think is a lovely effort. Unfortunately two of the peers (crossbenchers and therefore ‘out of control’ in as far as you can be ‘out of control’ in one of the most traditional institutions in the country) clearly decided to go against this advice and plumped to be Lord (again not related or married) and Lady Stern probably just to teach those ‘young bucks’ a thing or two. The same rebellious message is also carried by Lady Sharp and Lord Snape: fun will not be tolerated.

3. If in doubt, get imperialistic.

Now this isn’t even whimsical imaginings. This is the bit that they actually do get to choose so I can speculate on this. When becoming a life peer you can choose where you become ‘of somewhere’ or you can choose not to be ‘of somewhere’ and be plain old Lord X. Some of the peers have been very good territorially annexing the United Kingdom, ambitiously claiming swathes of London, such as Lady Cohen of Pimlico or Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, whilst some have been timid about demanding their title lands. The most un-ambitious award must be meted out to Lady Armstrong who eventually settled on being Baroness Armstrong of (an unnamed) Hill Top. Some went for towns or small cities such as Lord Bassam of Brighton or Lord May of Oxford. Some even claimed the rubbish bits of England. Why would you choose to be Lord of Watford or Lord of Dorking? It’s madness. In addition, TOWIE (for those of you who know about popular culture) has the last laugh over Lord Black of Brentwood, for making his feudal lands more famous for a nightclub called Sugar Hut than any of his conservative values.

So there you go, why would we want to reform a bunch of people who may, or may not, have picked some very funny names to go alongside their very serious business?