Why Lord Menuhin is a baron?

January 28, 2011 at 10:46 AM ·

In Britain - people who have made a great contribution to public life can be offered the special honour of a life peerage.  In 1993, this honour was given to Yehudi Menuhin.   It entitled him to sit in the House of Lords in Westminster and meant that he was granted the title of "Lord".  If you are a life peer, your heirs cannot inherit the title - it dies with you.

However, when you are given a life peerage, you also have to choose what town or village in Britain you want to have your peerage associated with, usually a place where you've lived, worked or had some special association - so Lord Menuhin decided to choose the village of Stoke d'Abernon, where he had established his Menuhin School years before.   A life peer is addressed as "Baron" so Lord Menuhin's official form of address was Baron Menuhin of Stoke d'Abernon.

Hope this helps!

January 28, 2011 at 05:58 PM ·

One day we might get rid of these antiquated and silly titles.

January 28, 2011 at 09:07 PM ·

 Oh Peter, to you its silly, to us its ...... Quaint.  I think our lack of knowledge of the peerage makes us immune to being impressed.  (One day the republicans will get a referendum up that makes sense, and we will no longer need a Governor General to represent HRH and sack the elected head of state).

My mother in law is a pathetic monarchist, she takes it as if her own great grand children are the ones involved in the royal wedding.  Actually, she holds it more importantly than she does the events of her own.  She remains impressed by titles.

January 29, 2011 at 05:24 AM ·

If you're inclined to get irritated, another thing to add to the list is that most people get Menuhin's title wrong.  Often, he is referred to as "Lord Yehudi Menuhin," which is in fact a title saved for younger sons of dukes (and whoever is next below them in the peerage ranks).   So there never was a "Lord Yehudi," just a Lord Menuhin.  Preceded, of course, by a "Sir Yehudi."

January 29, 2011 at 08:13 AM ·

Personally I think all titles are demeaning, and as to whether one gets them right or wrong is meaningless to all but navel gazers.

In the music profession here most titles get ignored and the person is called by their first name or surname, such as Mr  (with Sir, Lord or whatever ignored).

I knew one "Sir" who got very angry when people used the title and he was always known by his first name, even though he addressed everyone in the band as Mr or Miss.

January 29, 2011 at 01:05 PM ·

Would you say the same of the term 'Dr.' Peter?

January 29, 2011 at 01:16 PM ·

No, that is something which has been earnt by becoming a doctor of medicine, music, or whatever.

It is rather different to be given a meaningless title simply because you are favoured by the establishment, or by powerful friends who reccommend you.

I really think we should get rid of our "House of Lords" as it's about 300 years out of date. We need an elected second chamber, with no Bishops filling up the seats.

January 29, 2011 at 01:28 PM ·

I remember at an Irish music session in Bristol some years ago we had four "Drs" present, three of whom were university academics and one was an MD in general practice. The three academics, one a full professor, use their doctoral titles only in their academic environment. There were four other professionals from various disciplines also playing (one recently retired). 

Every orchestra I've played in over the years has had at least two MDs and a few other medics playing.

First names are of course the order of the day among musicians.

January 29, 2011 at 02:11 PM · Why Lord Menuhin is a baron? He's not anymore as he's dead ...

January 29, 2011 at 02:14 PM ·

I've always understood the purpose of a non-elected second chamber – or upper house, call it what you will – is to provide a moderating effect on the occasional legislative excesses of an elected lower chamber, without forever having to be considering the results of the next general election or the distractions of local constituency politics. An elected second chamber would, in my view, considerably dilute that moderating effect.

The other purpose of a non-elected (but selected) second chamber is to provide a high level of  knowledge and expertise in a very wide range of disciplines from acknowledged leaders and experts in those disciplines. There is also the opportunity for such a second chamber to debate and take a long-term view of events and parliamentary decisions in the light of their collective experience.

As a purely practical matter it seems appropriate to recognize an eminent person's readiness for membership of the second chamber and to identify them as such by awarding a non-hereditary title.  

Hereditary membership of the UK's House of Lords is, as a matter of fact, coming to an end, leaving more room for non-hereditary members who are experts and leaders in their fields. 

January 30, 2011 at 01:40 AM ·

Well, I normally agree with Peter but I have to totally disagree with him on this. The House of Lords as it was actually worked very well with a mix of hereditary peers who therefore aren't beholden to anyone for their advancement, and the appointed life peers who normally seemed to speak good sense. If you listen to any of the debates, the standard of debate from the Lords is far above the yah-booh-sucks of the Commons where no-one dares defy the party machine.

I think W.S. Gilbert gat it right in Iolanthe "Did nothing in particular, And did it very well:"

And of course "but with a House of Peers composed exclusively of people of intellect, what’s to become of the House of Commons?"

And that's the core reason - if the second chamber is elected, how will it differ from the Commons? And if we finish up with PR and party lists, ALL of them will just be party hacks who've got there by being good boys and girls and utterly beholden to the party.

Basically, it wasn't broke - our last government just had to change everything!

As you'll gather, I'm rather conservative (small "c")

January 30, 2011 at 03:23 AM ·

Although I am an American, and can't really be considered to have an informed opinion, I still have an opinion.

I think they should modernize the titles. Instead of baronet, they should have more distinct gradients, such as microbaron, picobaron, or femtobaron. Pollibly change the concept of 'Lord' to ML (MicroLord) in the process.

January 30, 2011 at 06:20 AM ·

I had just responded to this but the site crashed! Never rely on the internet!

What should be remembered is that many of “their lordships” only go into the house to collect their daily allowance which is quite generous. A lot of these ancient lords then just fall asleep in the chamber.

I would also point out that even though there are a minority of independents, most of the lords were put there by their respective Tory, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties, so they are expected to support their benefactors.

It is also true that there are members of the lords with vested interests, such as the 12 bishops, who push to the fore their religious biases and policies to protect the church and religion, and this in a secular country. These bishops can vote on any bill or subject. They are there by divine right going back centuries, no one has elected them, and this cannot be right in the 21^st Century.

It would be best in my opinion if the lords (or rather second chamber) could be non political, and no one there would represent a political party. They could also then face re-election after 10 or more years rather than the usual five, when many would have stepped down by then anyway due to age or death. This need not all happen at once but by a time period or replacement due to retirement or death.

This at last would be an effective and unbiased second chamber and might have stopped the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, caused by a rogue prime minister and an American accomplice.

January 30, 2011 at 10:10 AM ·

The worst culprits are the political appointees - the failed (e.g. Lord Taylor) or superannuated politicians. And although I'm an atheist, I don't have a problem with  the Bishops in the house. As they're put there for life, a lot of the appointed peers then don't have to toe the party line as they can't be threatened with not being supported at the next election. And if we had an elected house, wouldn't that then compete with the Commons as having equal validity? It's meant to be a revising chamber.

Anyway, in a violin forum with an international readership, I think we'd probably better just agree to differ.

January 30, 2011 at 12:30 PM ·

Should there not be special lordly titles that apply only to violinists? I offer a few modest examples:
--- Your Royal Downbowship
--- Fellow of the Order of the Kreisler Shift
--- Grand Rosinette
--- Baron d'Minor