Charles Courtenay, the 19th Earl of Devon, grew up near Powderham Castle in Devon, moved to California in his 20s and later inherited the earldom when his father died in 2015. Though he has three older sisters, the title and family seat passed to him under male primogeniture — a lineage rule reaching back centuries. The earldom also carried a seat in the House of Lords: Courtenay is one of the remaining hereditary peers who automatically sat in Parliament’s upper chamber.
This month Parliament passed the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act of 2026, abolishing the right of hereditary peers to pass seats to their descendants. As a compromise, some current hereditary peers may remain until they die, but the seats will no longer be inheritable.
Hereditary peers are a vestige of feudal Britain, originating with monarchs granting land and counsel in return for service after the Norman Conquest of 1066. Over the 20th century successive reforms chipped away at the Lords’ authority and makeup: the 1911 and 1949 acts narrowed its powers, life peers were introduced in 1958, and a major reduction of hereditary peers came under Tony Blair in 1999, which removed roughly 90% of inherited seats. Still, 92 remained — a number that critics long argued was incompatible with modern democracy.
“It is seemingly so wild that anybody in this day and age could inherit the right to legislate,” historian Eleanor Doughty says. Public sentiment has been increasingly skeptical: a 2024 poll found only one in seven Britons had a positive view of the House of Lords.
Symbols of Britain’s imperial and aristocratic past persist in public life. The royal family remains a major landowner and the head of state in many former colonies; parliamentary titles and ceremonial trappings retain aristocratic language and styles. Doughty notes Britain never underwent a revolution that dismantled its aristocracy the way France did; instead, peers gradually adapted and survived.
Courtenay presents a mixed portrait of continuity and change. He fits certain stereotypes — white, male, educated at Eton and Cambridge — but has used his position to press for reforms. He has lobbied to change male primogeniture rules so daughters could inherit titles, and in Parliament he has called the chamber “gendered” and “discriminatory,” urging lawmakers to move away from associations tied to land and rank. He has also restored the portrait of an ancestor exiled for being gay and transformed Powderham Castle into a venue promoting inclusivity, hosting pop concerts and LGBTQ weddings.
“Because if you really believe in equal rights, what on earth am I doing?” Courtenay said, acknowledging the contradiction of his own inherited privilege. He opposed losing his seat but accepts the move toward a more representative upper chamber. He suggests various ideas for future reform: electing members by region or profession, or even experimenting with lottery or jury-style selections — arguing hereditary peers bring “a little bit of longer-term memory” to policymaking because they operate across generations rather than electoral cycles.
Not all members of the Lords are hereditary. Many are appointed life peers, selected by prime ministers, and a handful of seats are reserved for Church of England bishops. But even life peers are unelected: Baroness Carmen Smith of Llanfaes, one of the chamber’s youngest members, describes standing out amid an average membership age of 71 and a membership that is roughly 70% male. Raised in public housing and never to private school, she chose “Llanfaes” in her title after the estate where she grew up. Smith says she wants to abolish her own unelected office and push for a fully elected upper chamber, a position supported by a majority of Britons in recent polling.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer campaigned on wider House of Lords reform: abolish hereditary seats first, set a mandatory retirement age of 80 for existing peers, and ultimately replace the Lords with a more representative second chamber by summer 2029. Public surveys, including a 2025 UCL study, indicate support that goes beyond the government’s current plans — for example, 71% of respondents favored capping the number of Lords, an issue since the chamber currently has no fixed limit and more than 800 members.
The 2026 abolition of hereditary succession to Lords’ seats is the next step in a longer reform timeline. Some hereditary peers will remain for life, but the opportunity to pass seats down family lines has ended. Courtenay says his focus now will be contributing to the debate over how the upper chamber should evolve, arguing that experience rooted in long family histories can offer continuity even as Britain moves to modernize its institutions.
One small consolation for peers losing parliamentary inheritance: Powderham Castle and other family properties remain private. The extinguishing of hereditary legislative privilege does not strip land or titles themselves — it removes the automatic right to a place in Parliament. After centuries of inherited service, Britain’s ancient link between landed title and lawmaking is finally being severed.