The Premiership of Tony Blair began on 2 May 1997 and ended on 27 June 2007. While serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Blair concurrently served as the First Lord of the Treasury, the Minister for the Civil Service, the Leader of the Labour Party (until Gordon Brown was declared Labour leader on 24 June 2007), and a Member of Parliament for the constituency of Sedgefield in County Durham. He remains a Privy Counsellor having first been appointed in July 1994 when he became Leader of the Opposition. Blair is the Labour Party's longest-serving Prime Minister, and having led the party to three consecutive general election victories, the only Labour Prime Minister to serve more than one full consecutive term.
Blair is both credited with and criticised for moving the Labour Party towards the centre of British politics, using the term "New Labour" to distinguish his pro-market policies from the more collectivist policies which the party had espoused in the past.
In domestic government policy, Blair has significantly increased public spending on health and education while also introducing controversial market-based reforms in these areas. Blair's tenure has also seen the introduction of a minimum wage, tuition fees for higher education, constitutional reform such as devolution in Scotland and Wales, and progress in the Northern Ireland peace process. The British economy performed well, Blair kept to Conservative commitments not to increase income tax in the first term although rates of Employee's National Insurance (a payroll levy) were increased, increasing taxation of wages.
Controversially, Blair strongly supported US foreign policy, notably by participating in the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.
On 7 September 2006 Blair publicly stated he would step down as party leader by the time of the TUC conference in September 2007. On 10 May 2007 he announced his intention to resign as Prime Minister on 27 June 2007.

First term 1997 to 2001
Immediately after taking office, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown gave the Bank of England the power to set the UK base rate of interest autonomously, as agreed in 1992 in the Treaty of Maastricht. This decision was popular with the British financial establishment in London, which the Labour Party had been courting since the early 1990s. Together with the Government's decision to remain within projected Conservative spending limits for its first two years in office, it helped to reassure sceptics of the Labour Party's fiscal "prudence".


Independence for the Bank of England
In the early years of his first term, Blair relied for his political advice on a close circle of his staff, among whom his press secretary and official spokesman Alastair Campbell was seen as particularly influential. Controversially, Campbell was permitted to give orders to civil servants, who had previously taken instructions only from ministers. Unlike some of his predecessors, Campbell was a political appointee and had not come up through the Civil Service. Despite his overtly political role, he was paid from public funds as a civil servant. His was one of a number of New Labour appointments that gave rise to fears that the traditional political neutrality of the civil service was being eroded.
A significant achievement of Blair's first term was the signing, on 10 April 1998, of the Belfast Agreement, generally known as the Good Friday Agreement. Negotiations aimed at bringing peace to Northern Ireland had begun under the previous Prime Minister, John Major, but had collapsed after the end of the first IRA ceasefire in the mid-1990s. In the Good Friday Agreement, most Northern Irish political parties, together with the British and Irish Governments, agreed upon an "exclusively peaceful and democratic" framework for the governance of Northern Ireland and a new set of political institutions for the province. In November 1998 Blair became the first British Prime Minister to address Dáil Éireann ending years of animosity between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.
Blair's first term saw an extensive programme of changes to the constitution. The Human Rights Act was introduced in 1998; a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly were set up; most hereditary peers were removed from the House of Lords in 1999; the Greater London Authority and the post of Mayor of London were established in 2000; and the Freedom of Information Act was passed later in the same year, with its provisions coming into effect over the following decade. This last Act disappointed campaigners, whose hopes had been raised by a 1998 White Paper which had promised more robust legislation. Also, whether the House of Lords should be fully appointed, fully elected, or be subject to a combination of the two remains a disputed question. 2003 saw a series of inconclusive votes on the matter in the House of Commons.
Significant change took place to legislation relating to rights of lesbian and gay and transgender people during Blair's period in office. During his first term, the age of consent for gay sex was equalised at 16 (see Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000) and the ban on gays in the armed forces was lifted. Subsequently, in 2005, a Civil Partnership Act came into effect, allowing gay couples to form legally recognised partnerships. At the end of September 2006 more than 30,000 Britons had entered into Civil Partnerships as a result of this law. The ultimate unpopularity of what should have been a fringe project meant that its failure had a political effect that far exceeded its intrinsic importance.

Domestic politics
In 1999, Blair planned and presided over the declaration of the Kosovo War. While in opposition, the Labour Party had criticised the Conservatives for their perceived weakness during the Bosnian war, and Blair was among those urging a strong line by NATO against Slobodan Milošević. Blair was criticised both by those on the Left who opposed the war in principle and by some others who believed that the Serbs were fighting a legitimate war of self-defence. One month into the war, on 22 April 1999, Blair made a speech in Chicago setting out his "Doctrine of the International Community".. This later became known by the media as the "Blair doctrine".
Also in 1999, Blair was awarded the Charlemagne Award by the German city of Aachen for his contributions to the European ideal and to peace in Europe.

Foreign policy
In the 2001 general election campaign, Blair emphasised the theme of improving public services, notably the National Health Service and the State education system. The Conservatives concentrated on opposing British membership of the Euro, which did little to win over floating voters. The Labour Party largely preserved its majority, and Blair became the first Labour Prime Minister to win a full second term. However, the election was notable for a large fall in voter turnout.
Following the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, Blair was very quick to align the UK with the United States, engaging in a round of shuttle diplomacy to help form and maintain an international coalition prior to the 2001 war against Afghanistan. He maintains his diplomatic activity to this day, showing a willingness to visit countries that other world leaders might consider too dangerous to visit. In 2003, he became the first Briton since Winston Churchill to be awarded a Congressional Gold Medal by the United States Congress for being "a staunch and steadfast ally of the United States of America",

Iraq war
After fighting the 2001 election on the theme of improving public services, Blair's government raised taxes in 2002 (described by the Conservatives as "stealth taxes") in order to increase spending on education and health. Blair insisted the increased funding would have to be matched by internal reforms. The government introduced the Foundation Hospitals scheme to allow NHS hospitals financial autonomy, although the eventual shape of the proposals, after an internal struggle with Gordon Brown, allowed for less freedom than Blair had wished. Several healthcare trusts established under the foundation hospitals scheme are now in severe financial difficulties, having spent large proportions of their funding increases on pay rises for staff and on expensive drugs. As a result, with supply of healthcare services increasing less quickly than demand, benefits from the NHS have not increased to the same degree, and the NHS had an £800 million deficit for the 2005/6 financial year.
The peace process in Northern Ireland hit a series of problems. In October 2002, the Northern Ireland Assembly established under the Good Friday Agreement was suspended. Attempts to persuade the IRA to decommission its weapons were unsuccessful, and, in the second set of elections to the Assembly in November 2003, the staunchly unionist Democratic Unionist Party replaced the more moderate Ulster Unionist Party as Northern Ireland's largest unionist party, making a return to devolved government more difficult. At the same time, Sinn Féin replaced the more moderate SDLP as the province's largest nationalist party.
In its first term, the government had introduced an annual fixed tuition fee of around £1,000 for higher education students (rejecting requests from universities to be allowed to vary the fee), with reductions and exemptions for poor students. At the same time, the remaining student maintenance grant was replaced with a low-interest loan, which was to be repaid once the student was earning over a certain threshold. In 2003, Blair controversially introduced legislation permitting universities to charge variable fees of up to £3,000 per year. At the same time, the repayment of student loans was delayed until the graduate's income was much higher, and grants were reintroduced for some students from poorer backgrounds. It was claimed the increase in university fees violated a promise in Labour's 2001 election manifesto, though this claim is arguably unsustainable if the relevant promise is interpreted strictly and literally. At its second reading in the House of Commons in January 2004, the Higher Education Bill which contained the changes was passed with a majority of only five, due to a large-scale backbench Labour rebellion. A defeat was averted by a last-minute change of intention by a small number of Gordon Brown's backbench allies.
On 1 August 2003 Blair became the longest continuously serving Labour Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, surpassing Harold Wilson's 1964–1970 term. The Hutton Inquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelly reported on 2 August, ruling that he had committed suicide, and despite widespread expectations that the report would criticise Blair and his government, Hutton cleared the Government of deliberately inserting false intelligence into the September Dossier, while criticising the BBC editorial process which had allowed unfounded allegations to be broadcast. Evidence to the inquiry raised further questions over the use of intelligence in the run up to the war, and the report did not satisfy opponents of Blair and of the war. After a similar decision by President Bush, Blair set up another inquiry—the Butler Review—into the accuracy and presentation of the intelligence relating to Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Opponents of the war, especially the Liberal Democrats, refused to participate in this inquiry, since it did not meet their demands for a full public inquiry into whether the war was justified.
The political fallout from the Iraq War continued to dog Blair's premiership after the Butler Review. On 25 August 2004 Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price announced he would attempt to impeach Blair,

Domestic politics
On 19 October 2003 it emerged Blair had received treatment for an irregular heartbeat. Having felt ill the previous day, he went to hospital and was diagnosed with supraventricular tachycardia. This was treated by cardioversion and he returned home that night. He was reported to have taken the following day (20 October) more gently than usual and returned to a full schedule on 21 October. Downing Street aides later suggested the palpitations had been brought on by drinking lots of strong coffee at an EU summit and then working-out vigorously in the gym. However, former minister Lewis Moonie, a doctor, said the treatment was more serious than Number 10 had admitted: "Anaesthetising somebody and giving their heart electric shocks is not something you just do in the routine run of medical practice."
In September 2004, in off-the-cuff remarks during an interview with ITV news, Lord Bragg said Blair was "under colossal strain" over "considerations of his family" and that Blair had thought "things over very carefully." This led to speculation Blair would resign. Although details of a family problem were known by the press, no paper reported them because according to one journalist, to have done so would have breached "the bounds of privacy and media responsibility." The planned procedure was carried out at London's Hammersmith hospital.

Health problems
At the same time as Blair's operation it was disclosed the Blairs had purchased a house at 29 Connaught Square, London, for a reported £3.5 million.. The purchase also led to more speculation that Blair was preparing for life after government.

Connaught Square
The Labour Party won the Thursday 5 May 2005 general election and a third consecutive term in office. The next day, Blair was invited to form a Government by Queen Elizabeth II. The reduction in the Labour majority (from 167 to 66) and the low share of the popular vote (35%) led to some Labour MPs calling for Blair to leave office sooner rather than later; among them was Frank Dobson, who had served in Blair's cabinet during his first term. However, dissenting voices quickly vanished as Blair in June 2005 took on European leaders over the future direction of the European Union.

Third term 2005 to 2007
The rejection by France and the Netherlands of the treaty to establish a constitution for the European Union presented Blair with an opportunity to postpone the doubtful UK referendum on the constitution without taking the blame for failing from the EU. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw announced that the Parliamentary Bill to enact a referendum was suspended indefinitely. It had previously been agreed that ratification would continue unless the treaty had been rejected by at least five of the 25 European Union member states who must all ratify it. In an address to the European Parliament, Blair stated: "I believe in Europe as a political project. I believe in Europe with a strong and caring social dimension." lukewarm in spite of some diplomatic success including a last-minute budget deal. The most controversial result was an agreement to increase British contributions to the EU development budget for new member countries, which effectively reduced the UK rebate by 20%.

G8 and EU presidencies
On 6 July 2005, during the 117th International Olympic Committee (IOC) session in Singapore, the IOC announced that the 2012 Summer Olympics, the Games of the XXX Olympiad, were awarded to London over Paris by only four votes. The competition between Paris and London to host the Games had become increasingly heated particularly after French President Jacques Chirac commented three days before the vote that "one cannot trust people [ie: the British] whose cuisine are so bad."

London to host the 2012 Summer Olympics
On Thursday 7 July 2005, a series of four bomb explosions struck London's public transport system during the morning rush-hour. All four incidents were suicide bombings. Fifty-six people were killed and 700 injured. The incident was the deadliest single act of terrorism in the United Kingdom since 270 died in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland and replaced the 1998 Omagh Bombing (29 dead) as the second most deadly terrorist attack on British soil. It was also the deadliest bombing in London since World War II.
Blair made a statement about the day's bombings, saying that he believed it was "reasonably clear" that it was an act of terror, and that he hoped the people of Britain could demonstrate that their will to overcome the events is greater than the terrorists' wish to cause destruction. He also said that his determination to "defend" the British way of life outweighed "extremist determination" to destroy it. On 13 July 2005, he told that international cooperation would be needed to "pull up this evil ideology by its roots".

2005 London bombings
The introduction of further reforms to the education system, which restricted the involvement of local education authorities in opening new schools, proved controversial. Labour backbenchers opposed to the proposals produced a rival manifesto, and the Bill to introduce the changes was delayed while the government negotiated with them. The Conservative Party declared its support for the reforms, making passage certain but increasing the likelihood that Labour MPs would vote against them. On 15 March 2006, the Education and Inspections Bill passed its second reading, with 52 Labour MPs voting against; had the Conservative Party also voted against it would have been defeated.

Education reforms 2006
The local elections in England on 4 May 2006 dealt a blow to Blair, with the loss of 317 seats and 18 councils. This result was thought to be partly continued fallout from public dissatisfaction over the decision to invade Iraq, and partly due to a scandal concerning the Home Office's mishandling of foreign criminals' deportation. At the same time, an affair of the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott with his diary secretary had been made public. Further, some Primary Care and Hospital Trust sustained significant deficits and had to release staff, which called into question the position of Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt. On 5 May, Blair reshuffled his Cabinet. Most significantly, Charles Clarke and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw were relieved of their duties and many other positions were reassigned. Many commentators saw this as a panic reaction designed to ward off calls for Blair to step down.

Local elections on 4 May 2006 and cabinet reshuffle
Blair urged his fellow EU members on October 20, 2006 to send a strong message to the Sudanese government that it must allow a UN force into Darfur, arguing that it is a critical time for Darfur and therefore a chance for the EU to strengthen the pressure on the Sudanese government.

Darfur
See also: Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007
After Labour's 2004 conference, on 30 September 2004, Blair announced in a BBC interview

Debate over Muslim women wearing veils
Blair was interviewed in connection with the cash for honours investigation by the police in December 2006, the first time that a serving Prime Minister has been questioned by police regarding a criminal investigation.

Infobox last updated on: June 4, 2007.
Vijay Amritraj (Tamil: விஜய் அமிர்தராஜ், Hindi: विजय अम्िरत्राज, Urdu: وِجے اَمرِترج), born December 14, 1953) is an Indian/American former tennis player and actor.
Amritraj was born in Madras, India to Maggie Dhairyam and Robert Amritraj. He and his brothers, Anand Amritraj and Ashok Amritraj, were among the first Indians to play in top-flight international tour tennis. In 1976, the brothers (Vijay and Anand) were semi-finalists in the Wimbledon men's doubles.
After playing his first grand prix event in 1970, Amritraj achieved his first significant success in singles in 1973 when he reached the quarter-final stage at two Grand Slam events. At Wimbledon he lost 5-7 in the fifth set to the eventual champion Jan Kodes and later that summer at the U.S. Open lost to tennis great Ken Rosewall after having beaten another legend, Rod Laver, two rounds earlier.
Amritraj repeated his feat at Forest Hills in 1974 when he went out in the last eight again to Rosewall after beating a young Björn Borg in the second round. In the years that followed he reached the latter stages of numerous Grand Prix events but failed to meet with success in the grand slams. It would not be again until 1981 when Amritraj would again proceed to the quarter-finals, going out in five sets to Jimmy Connors. This match typified Amritraj's tennis. He was a natural grass-court player who liked to chip-and-charge, and serve-and-volley. He could compete against the world's best but often would lose longer matches through a lack of stamina. Against Connors he was up two sets but lost the last two convincingly in a 6-2, 7-5, 4-6, 3-6, 2-6 loss. A similar Wimbledon result occurred in 1979 in the 2nd round where he looked set to defeat defending champion Borg, up two sets to one and 4-1 in the 4th set, only to lose 6-2, 4-6, 6-4, 6-7, 2-6.
Amritraj was the captain of the Indian Davis Cup for much of the late 1970's and 1980's, helping India reach the finals in 1974 and 1987. It was here that he revelled as a champion and chalked memorable wins against higher ranked players. A do-or-die five set epic over Martin Jaite was the highlight of India's run to the final in 1987. He compiled a career singles win-lose record 384-296, winning 16 singles titles to go along with 13 in doubles. He beat the best, including John McEnroe at his peak in 1984 (in the first round in Cincinnati) and had five career wins over Connors in their 11 matches. He reached his career high ranking in singles of World No. 16 in July, 1980.
Vijay also had a brief acting career, appearing with Roger Moore in the James Bond film, Octopussy as Vijay and in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. He has since gone on to become a sports commentator, has been a judge at the Miss Universe pageant, and has developed a successful multimedia business.
Both his son Prakash Amritraj and nephew, Stephen Amritraj are professional tennis players.
In 2006, after completing his assignment as a "United Nations Messenger of Peace," Mr. Vijay Amritraj founded "The Vijay Amritraj Foundation." The foundation's mission is to bring hope, help and healing to the defenseless and innocent victims of disease, tragedy and circumstance in India. Driven by a firm belief that "in giving we receive," the foundation pledges to make a real difference for those who are most in need of the helping hand of humanity. After an extraordinarily successful debut in 2006, the Foundation raised enough funds to immediately begin supporting various Charitable Organizations in India. Over the next decade, the Foundation aims to have a meaningful presence in all the states of the Indian Union, and to make a positive difference in the lives of the less fortunate citizens of these states. Today, many noteworthy persons are associated with the Foundation, including World Leaders, Statesmen, Business Leaders, and Philanthropists; among them, George H.W. Bush -Former President of the United States, Mr. Reddy S. Jay Reddy - Chairman & CEO of The CORBISCO Group, Mr. Sashi Tharoor - Former Under Secretary General of the United Nations, and General the Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank - Chief of the Defence Staff of the United Kingdom during the Blair Administration. The Foundation conducts a highly successful Golf Tournament every year, followed by a gala dinner event in Beverly Hills, California.

The term prince, from the Latin root princeps, is used for a member of the highest ranks of the aristocracy or the nobility.
The title is given only to males and has several fundamentally different meanings, of which one is generic to the word, and several types of titles. The female equivalent is a princess.

Historical background
The original, but least common use of the title, is as a generic term (descriptive, not formal), one originating in the application of the Latin word princeps, from Roman, more precisely Byzantine law and the classical system of government that was the European feudal society. I.e. the emperor, or generalized the ruler. In this sense, it can in principle be used for any reigning monarch, hereditary or elective, regardless of his title and protocolary rank.
Example: The early Renaissance title of Niccolò Machiavelli's book Il Principe attests and exemplifies the use of the word prince in this meaning, as a sovereign ruler of a society.
The word prince did not come into official, or formalized, use in Europe until quite late, i.e some three-to-four centuries ago. All medieval rulers had other, particular or more formalized titles in use, either in their native language or in Latin.
All findings of the title prince used for a lord of a territory before the 13th century are either translations of native titles to Latin or the term used in a more general sense than as the formal only title of the potentate in question.
Most of the medieval feudal magnates that now or then are accorded the prince title, have actually formally then been Lord of an estate that is defined as a principality. Almost all lands described as medieval principalities in feudal societies, have been so-called allodial properties, i.e not under feudal obligations but inalienably the landowner's inheritable real-estate.
This explanation for origins of French principalities has been supplied by heraldic and genealogical research [1]. An example of this has been the title of Prince of Dombes. Such principalities tended to be small. Presumably, Monaco is an example of such a principality that has survived to today, by existing as a sovereign state.
The use of the term prince was then more like a common title given to different kinds of official titles for different kinds of feudal territories. All local rulers of feudal societies, from the level of count upwards, were regarded as princes in this sense. This is attested by even today, surviving styles for e.g counts, margraves and dukes that are high and noble princes (cf. Royal and noble styles).
From 16th century onwards, European monarchs quite widely granted such abstract titles that were not linked to the power of government of an actual county or territory. This led to official recognition that ancient dynasties of the Holy Roman Empire were much more true rulers, reigning lords, than the new class of persons being holder of equivalent title of honour.
After the general term "prince" was recognized, the practice of adding a prefix title began. This tradition stems from the creation of nobilary titles in the Holy Roman Empire, where noble families began using prefix titles as a means to distinguish their older, territory-linked titles from merely honorific ones. For example, the German title of gefürsteter Graf (princely count) is known to have existed in the 18th century and possibly may have existed even earlier. It is important to keep in mind, however, that these prefix titles were not new grants, but rather an explication of existing positions and status by the use of new terminology. Princely counts (including the various gefürstete margraves, landgraves, counts palatine, etc.) soon started to use the title Fürst (prince) more than they used the less impressive-sounding "count". Consequently, with the advent of the title "Fürst", a new class of nobility was created whose status clearly ranked above that of those newly created counts and marquesses, but ranked just under the title of duke. The rank of "duke" was not similarly augmented; it had not suffered any lessening of prestige, as the title was not given in bulk. In the 19th century, however, dukes holding, or in direct line of succession to autocratic power, tended to assume the title archduke or grand duke to further distinguish themselves from mere dukes.
The following parts of this article are only concerned with the usages as a formal nobiliary (or analogous) title.

Prince as a generic word for ruler

Prince as a courtesy title
The courtesy title of prince was often given to a prince of the blood. That is a general term for a male member of a ruling house of a monarchy. Further distinctions within this category can exist from country to country and from time period to time period, e.g. First Prince of the Blood in France.
In some monarchies, e.g. the kingdom of France, this appellation is a specific title in its own right, of more restricted use. There the notion of prince du sang is restricted to paternal royal descendants. Depending on national tradition, the appellation may have restricted scope or not, often no further than one or two generations after the monarch and / or the line of succession, or it may be allowed to run into very high numbers, as is often the case in oriental dynasties.
Generally, when such a prince succeeds to the throne as ruling or least titular monarch, he stops being styled a titular prince. This goes for Kings, Emperors, Grand Dukes or one of many other ruler-styles, usually of higher rank, except in the case of a ruler styled prince of a particular principality (see below). The same principle applies, mutatis mutandis when a courtesy princess becomes a queen regnant.
The female equivalent of a courtesy title of prince is princess. But then this title is also generally used for the spouse of any prince, of the blood, or of a principality, and also the daughter of any monarch. Regardless of birth rank, marriage to a prince(ss) generally means accession to the ruling house, but often the princely style is subject to an explicit conferral by the Monarch or a political authority with in say in the succession, e.g. certain parliaments, which may be delayed, withheld or even reversed. Inversely, the husband of a born princess is in many monarchies not as readily styled prince, although it certainly occasionally happened.
In these systems, a courtesy title of prince can be given to:
But in cultures which allow the ruler to have several wives, e.g. four in Islam and / or official concubines, for these women sometimes collectively referred to as harem there are often specific rules determining their hierarchy and a variety of titles, which may distinguish between those whose offspring can be in line for the succeesion or not, or specifically who is mother to the heir to the throne.
To complicate matters, the style His Royal Highness, a prefix normally accompanying the title of a dynastic prince, of royal or imperial rank, that is, can be awarded separately (as a compromise or consolation prize, in some sense).
Although the definition above is the one that is most commonly understood, there are also different systems. Depending on country, epoch and translation other meanings of prince are possible.
Over the centuries foreign-language titles such as Italian principe, French prince, German Fürst, Russian kniaz, etc., are often translated as prince in English.
Many princely styles and titles are used in various monarchies, often changing with a new dynasty, even altered during one's rule, especially in conjunction with the style of the ruler. Indeed, various princely titles are derived from the ruler's, such as (e)mirza(da), khanzada, nawabzada, sahibzada, shahzada, sultanzada (all using the Persian patronymic suffix -zada, or son, descendant, or (maha)rajkumar from (Maha)Raja and Kolano ma-ngofa 'son of the ruler' on Tidore, again patronymic; or even from a unique title, e.g. mehtarjao.
However, often such style is used in a way that may surprise as not apparently logical, such as adopting a style for princes of the blood which is not pegged to the ruler's title, but rather continues an old tradition, asserts genealogical descendency from and / or claim of political succession to a more lofty monarchy, or simply is assumed 'because we can'.

The son of a monarch in the direct line of succession.
Other members of the royal family, also in the order of succession, although more distant and styled Royal Highness.
The husband of a reigning queen is usually titled prince or prince consort. However for wives of Monarchs, the title is usually a female variation on his, the same as used in case a female can mount the throne, such as queen or empress. Prince of the blood
In some monarchic dynasties, a very specific title is used, sometimes officially, such as Infante in Spain and Portugal.
This can be a style in existence for a princely - at least originally - feudal entity, possibly still nominally linked to one, Archduke in the Habsburg empire, Grand Prince (often rendered, less correctly, as Grand Duke) in tsarist Russia. See also Porphyrogenetos.
Other titles are unique to one dynasty, even though the ruler's title is not, such as Moulay (French form; also Mulay in English) in the Sherifian sultanate (now kingdom ruled by a Malik) of Morocco,
On the other hand, an existing style can be used without retaining any of its intrinsic qualities, e.g. Sultan for ordinary members of the Ottoman dynasty (ruler mainly styled Padishah)
Yet a style can be reserved for members of the dynasty meeting specific criteria, e.g. French Emperor Napoléon I Bonaparte created the style Prince français ('French prince') for the princes of his house in line for the imperial succession, which excluded notable his adoptive stepson Eugène de Beauharnais, who meanwhile was Prince de Venise in chief of Napoleon's other realm, Italy.
Sometimes a specific title is commonly used by various dynasties in a region, e.g. Mian in various of the Punjabi princely Hill States (lower Himalayan region in British India)
Some monarchies also commonly awarded some of their princes of the blood various lofty titles, some of which were reserved for royalty, other also open to the most trusted commoners and/or the highest nobility, as in the Byzantine empire (e.g. Protosebastos reserved).
Independently of such traditions, some dynasties more or less frequently awarded apanages to princes of the blood, typically carrying a feudal type title (often as such of lower protocollary rank than their birth rank) and some income.

• For the often specific terminology concerning a probable future successor, see Crown Prince and links there.

Confusingly, there are instances where a title suggests close kinship but actually only expresses a similar position in the line of succession, e.g. Filius Augusti 'son of the Augustus' in the Roman Tetrarchy. Furthermore, terms of kinship are sometimes used as a protocollary style, even for biologically unrelated digitaries, not unlike the practice of members of the clergy being addressed as 'father' and addressing laymen as 'my son/daughter', or even several ecclesiastical titles originally meaning father (notably Pope, Abbot, partially Patriarch) or brother (e.g. Fra).

For the often specific terminology concerning a probable future successor, see Crown Prince and links there. Specific titles
Other princes derive their title not from their heraditory or dynastic position as such, but from their claim to a unique and personal title of formal princely rank, one named after a specific and historical principality, but not connected to any practical claim as sovereign of a state, even if they belong to one.

Prince as a substantive title
A prince or princess who is the head of state of a territory that has a monarchy as a form of government is a reigning prince.

Prince as a reigning monarch
If the state that is governed by such a prince carries no other specific, formal name, their domain, typically smaller than a full sized kingdom, is called a principality. This can be a regular, independant and sovereign nation. Protocolary, these princes rank below a grand duke.
Currently the last sovereign cases, all tiny states in Europe, are:
Coat of arms of the principality of Andorra (1607).
Coat of arms of the principality of Liechtenstein (1719).
Coat of arms of the principality of Monaco (1861).
Coat of arms of the prince-bishopric of Rome (1927).
In the same tradition some self-proclaimed monarchs of so-called micronations establish themselves as virtual princes:

the principality of Liechtenstein (between Austria and Switzerland) : H.S.H. Hans-Adam II von und zu Liechtenstein, Sovereign Prince of Liechtenstein
the principality of Monaco (enclave in France) : H.S.H. Albert II of Grimaldi, Sovereign Prince of Monaco
the co-principality of Andorra (between Spain and France) : The President of France, Co-Prince of Andorra and H.E. Joan Enric Vives Sicília, Co-Prince of Andorra
the prince-bishopric of Rome (enclave in Italy) : H.H. Pope Benedict XVI, Prince-Bishop of Rome
Roy Bates calls himself Prince Roy of the Principality of Sealand Nominal principalities
The term prince has also been used to describe, in languages like English for lack of a more specific word for this concept, the head of any feudal or vassal state of lower — generally peerage — rank ruling in his own right, not in a mere gubernatorial capacity. For example, it has been used as a synonym for duke or count at times.
In German, such a prince is specifically called Fürst (capitals obligatory for German nouns), and there are equivalents in most languages and countries that know the tradition of the Holy Roman Empire and where this was called Kleinstaaterei. The title was used for the head of state, and the title of Prinz was used for cadet members of reigning royal or princely families, and also for the cadets of some mediatized families, and did not imply any sovereignty whatsoever.
The female equivalents are Fürstin and Prinzessin.

Generic use
Various monarchies provide for different modes in which princes of the dynasty can temporarily or permanently share in the style and / or office of the Monarch, e.g. as Regent or Viceroy.
Tthough these offices must not be reserved for members of the ruling dynasty, in some traditions they are, possibly even reflected in the style of the office, e.g. prince-lieutenant in Luxembourg repeatedly filled by the Crown prince before the grand duke's abdication, or in form of consortium imperii.
Some monarchies even have a practice in which the Monarch can formally abdicate in favor of his heir, and yet retain a kingly title with executive power, e.g. Maha Upayuvaraja (Sanskrit for Great Joint King in Cambodia), though sometimes also conferred on powerful regents who exercised executive powers.

Princes as representants of a reigning monarch

Titular princes
One type of prince belongs in both the genealogical royalty and the territorial princely styles. A number of nobiliary territories, carrying with them the formal style of prince, are not or no longer actual political, administrative, principalities, but are maintained as essentially honorary titles and are awarded traditionally or occasionally) to princes of the blood, as an appanage.
This is done in particular for the heir to the throne, creating a de facto primogeniture, who is often awarded a particular principality in each generation, so that it becomes synonymous with the first in line for the throne, even if there is no automatic legal mechanism to do so.
Examples of such titles are:
Some states have an analogous tradition, where they confer another princely title, such as the British royal duchies to various other royal princes, and (again, through de facto primogeniture).
Both systems may concur, as in Belgium, where Prince of Liège is one of the traditional titles for royal sons, alongside the title of Duke of Brabant, the highest title, being handed down through primogeniture if it is not yet taken. The title of Count of Flanders is similarly used for the next in the succession order.

The Crown Prince of the United Kingdom of Great-Britain and Northern Ireland: Prince of Wales (Charles, Prince of Wales)
The Crown Prince of the kingdom of the Netherlands: Prins van Oranje (Willem Alexander, Prince of Orange)
The Crown Prince of the kingdom of Spain: Principe de Asturias (Felipe, Prince of Asturias)
The Crown Prince of the kingdom of France: Dauphin de Viennois, then Dauphin de France Titular Princes from within the royal family
France and the Holy Roman Empire
In several countries of the European continent, e.g. in France, prince can be an aristocratic title of someone having a high rank of nobility in chief of a geographical place, but no actual territory, and without any necessary link to the royal family, which makes comparing it with e.g. the British system of royal princes difficult.
In France, prince was both a rank and a title. The rank was given to some great families related to foreign sovereign dynasties. It was called prince étranger (Foreign Prince) and carried special precedence at the court. Families of prince étranger rank were those of Lorraine, Cleves, Savoy, La Tour d'Auvergne and Rohan. The Foreign princes often had others ranks such as duke. When not a duke, a Foreign Prince could style himself prince of a fiefdom he held.
The kings of France started to bestow the aristocracy with princely titles from 16th century onwards. These titles were made by elevating a fiefdom to principalty status. This title had no place in the ranks of the nobility, but was notably use for dukes' heir apparent.
This can even occur in a monarchy within which an identical but real and substantive feudal title exists, such as Fürst in German. An example of this is:
Spain and France
In other cases, such titular princedoms are created in chief of an event, such as a treaty of a victory. An example of this is:
Poland and Russia
In Poland specifically, the titles of prince dated either to the times before the Union of Lublin or were granted to Polish nobles by foreign kings, as the law in Poland forbade king from dividing nobility by granting them hereditary titles. For more information, see The Princely Houses of Poland.
In the Russian system, knyaz, translated as prince, is the highest degree of nobility, and sometimes, represents a mediatization of an older native dynasty which became subject to the Russian imperial dynasty. Rurikid branches used the knyaz title also after they were succeeded by the Romanovs as the Russian imperial dynasty. An example of this is:

Prince de Mercœur of the House of Lorraine
Prince de Turenne of the House of La Tour d'Auvergne
Prince de Marcillac : heir of the duke de La Rochefoucauld
Prince de Tingry : heir to the duke de Piney-Luxembourg
Prince de Lamballe : heir of the duke de Penthièvre
Otto von Bismarck was called Prince of Bismarck in the empire of reunited Germany, under the Hohenzollern dynasty.
The Spanish minister Manuel Godoy was created Principe de la Paz or Prince of Peace by his king for negotiating the 1795 double peace-treaty of Basilea, by which the revolutionary French republic made peace with Prussia and with Spain.
The triumphant generals who led their troops to victory received a so called victory title. Especially Napoleon I Bonaparte created many such titles, also dukedoms.
King William I of the Netherlands bestowed the victory title of prince of Waterloo upon Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington after his victory over Napoleon I Bonaparte at Waterloo in 1815.
Grigori Aleksandrovich Potemkin who was made Prince Potemkin Titular Princes from outside the royal family
In each case, the title is followed (when available) by the female form and then (not always available, and obviously rarely applicable to a prince of the blood without a principality) the name of the territorial associated with it, each separated by a slash. If a second title (or set) is also given, then that one is for a Prince of the blood, the first for a principality. Be aware that the absence of a separate title for a prince of the blood may not always mean no such title exists; alternatively, the existence of a word does not imply there is also a reality in the linguistic territory concerned; it may very well be used exclusively to render titles in other languages, regardless whether there is a historical link with any (which often means that linguistic tradition is adopted)
Etymologically, we can discern the following traditions (some languages followed a historical link, e.g. within the Holy Roman Empire, not their linguistic family; some even fail to follow the same logic for certain other aristocratic titles):

Romanic languages

• Breton: Priñs /Priñsez
  Irish: Prionsa /Banphrionsa - Flaith /Banfhlaith
  Scottish Gaelic: Prionnsa /Bana-phrionnsa - Flath /Ban-fhlath
  Welsh: Twysog /Twysoges Celtic languages
  
  Languages (mainly Germanic) that use (generally alongside a princeps-derivate for princes of the blood) an equivalent of the German Fürst:
  
  
  
  • Danish: Fyrste /Fyrstinde - Prins /Prinsesse
    Dutch: Vorst /Vorstin- Prins /Prinses
    Estonian [Finno-Ugric family]: Vürst /Vürstinna - Prints /Printsess
    German: Fürst /Fürstin - Prinz /Prinzessin
    Icelandic: Fursti /Furstynja - Prins /Prinsessa
    Luxembourgish: Fürst /Fürstin - Prënz /Prinzessin
    Old English: Ǣðeling /Hlæfdiġe
    Norwegian: Fyrste /Fyrstinne - Prins /Prinsesse
    Swedish: Furste /Furstinna - Prins /Prinsessa Germanic languages
    
    Slavic and (related) Baltic languages:
    
    
    
    • Belarusian: Tsarevich, Karalevich, Prynts /Tsarewna, Karalewna, Pryntsesa
      Bulgarian: Knyaz /Knaginya, Tsarevich, Kralevich, Prints /Printsesa
      Croatian, Serbian: Knez /Kneginja Kraljević/Kraljevna, Princ/Princeza
      Czech: Kníže /Kněžna, Princ/Princezna
      Latvian: Firsts /Firstiene - Princis /Princese
      Lithuanian: Kunigaikštis /Kunigaikštiene - Princas /Princese
      F.Y.R.O.M.: Knez /Knezhina, Tsarevich, Kralevich, Prints /Tsarevna, Kralevna, Printsesa
      Polish: Książę /Księżna, Książę, Królewicz /Księżna, Królewna
      Russian: Knyaz /Knyagina Knyazhnya, Tsarevich, Korolyevich, Prints /Tsarevna, Korolyevna, Printsessa
      Slovak: Knieža /Kňažná, Kráľovič, Princ /Princezná
      Slovene: Knez /Kneginja, Kraljevič, Princ /Kraljična, Princesa
      Ukrainian: Knyaz /Knyazhnya, Tsarenko, Korolenko, Prints /Tsarivna, Korolivna, Printsizna Slavic and Baltic languages
      
      other languages:
      
      
      
      • Finnish: Ruhtinas /Ruhtinatar - Prinssi /Prinsessa
        Greek (Medieval, formal): Prigkips, Πρίγκηψ/Prigkipissa, Πριγκήπισσα
        Greek (Modern, colloquial): Prigkipas, Πρίγκηπας/Prigkipissa, Πριγκήπισσα
        Hungarian (Magyar): Herceg / Hercegnő
        Turkish: Prens/Prenses Other languages
        The above is essentially the story of European, Christian dynasties and other nobility, also 'exported' to their colonial and other overseas territories and otherwise adopted by rather westernized societies elsewhere (e.g. Haiti).
        Applying these essentially western concepts, and terminology, to other cultures even when they don't do so, is common but in many respects rather dubious. Different (historical, religious...) backgrounds have also begot significantly different dynastic and nobiliary systems, which are poorly represented by the 'closest' western analogy.
        It therefore makes sense to treat these per civilization.
        
        The title of prince in various Oriental and other traditions and languages
        
        Arabian tradition since the caliphate - in several monarchies it remains customary to use the title Sheikh (in itself below princely rank) for all members of the royal family. In families (often reigning dynasties) which claim descent from Muhammad, this is expressed in either of a number of titles (supposing different exact relations): sayid, sharif; these are retained even when too remote from any line of succession to be a member of any dynasty.
        Malay countries
        In the Ottoman empire, the sovereign of imperial rank (incorrectly known in the west as (Great) sultan) was styled padishah with a host of additional titles, reflecting his claim as political successor to the various conquered states. Princes of the blood, male and female, were given the style sultan (normally reserved for Muslim rulers)
        Persia (Iran) - Princes were referred to by the title Shahzadeh, meaning "descendant of the king". Since the word zadeh could refer to either a male or female descendant, Shahzadeh had the parallel meaning of "princess" as well. Islamic traditions
        In ancient China, the title of prince developed from being the highest title of nobility (synonymous with duke) in the Zhou Dynasty, to five grades of princes (not counting the sons and grandsons of the emperor) by the time of the fall of the Qing Dynasty.
        In Japan, the title of prince (kôshaku 公爵) was used as the highest title of kazoku (華族 Japanese modern nobility) before the present constitution. The title kôshaku, however, is more commonly translated as duke to avoid confusion with the royal ranks in the imperial household, shinnô (親王 (literally king of the blood) female;naishinnô (内親王 (literally queen(by herself) of the blood) and shinnôhi 親王妃 (literally consort of king of the blood)) or ô (王 (literally king) female;nyoô (女王 (literally queen (by herself)) and ôhi (王妃 (literally consort of king)). The former is the higher title of a male member of the Imperial family and the latter is the lower.
        
        China
        Japan
        Korea
        See princely states for the (often particular, mainly Hindu) title on the Indian subcontinent in (former British) India (including modern Pakistan and Bangladesh) as well as Burma and Nepal.
        Indochina: Cambodja, Vietnam, Laos
        Thailand
        Philippines (Principalia) Far Eastern traditions
        Except for the Arabized, Muslim North and some other monarchies that simply adopted Islamic practices, or in cases where a Western model was copied (e.g. Bokassa I's short-lived Central-African Empire in Napoleonic fashion), usually the styles, or even the systems, are completely independent or almost.
        
        The title of prince in religion
        
        Heir apparent and Heir presumptive
        Prince-elector and Prince Regent
        Prince consort and Princess consort
        King consort and Queen consort
        King regnant and Queen regnant
        Crown Prince, Grand Prince and Infante
        First Prince of the Blood
        Fils de France and Petit-Fils de France
        Monsieur and Madame Royale
        Prince of the Church and Cardinal
        Prince-Archbishop, Prince-Bishop and Prince-abbot
        Principality and Princely state
        Auctoritas, Dominate, Potestas and Imperium
        Fürst
        List of British princes and List of British princesses
        Grand Duchy, Grand duke and Grand duchess
        Nobility, Royalty and Royal and noble ranks

"Hunger circus" (Romanian: Circ al foamei) was a colloquial name for any in a series of identical buildings which were to be completed as part of Nicolae Ceauşescu's program of systematization during his period as ruler of Romania. Officially designated by the communist regime as "agro-alimentary complexes", the large domed buildings were intended as produce markets and public refectories. It appears to have been Ceauşescu's vision that they would serve as food hypermarkets, eliminating the need for selling or distributing food anywhere else.
The name "hunger circuses," now so universally used as to have almost suppressed the memory of the official communist-era term, derived from the circus-like domed architecture and the irony of constructing these massive food-related buildings during a period when food was scarce throughout Romania (due to Ceauşescu's policy of exporting most of Romania's agricultural produce in order to pay off the foreign debt). The irony was reinforced by the connotation of "circus" as ridiculous farce.
At the time of Ceauşescu's downfall and execution, only two hunger circuses had been completed: one of these, Pantelimon, now forms part of a public market in the Delfinului area of Bucharest; the other, also in Bucharest, is placed close to the Unirea shopping mall, nestled between Piaţa Unirii and Sfânta Vineri Street. Several others stood half-finished in scattered locations around Bucharest, surrounded by rusting construction cranes and vacant lots.
With transcendent irony, the hunger circuses left unfinished after the 1989 Revolution were later completed, under a revised architectural plan, as eminently capitalist malls such as Bucharest Mall, City Mall and Plaza România. The hunger circus in Rahova was demolished in November 2006 to make room for a new mall. Another hunger circus was transformed into a private university.

For almost a century, governments in the United Kingdom have attempted to find a way to undertake a comprehensive reform of the House of Lords, which is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. When the Labour Party came to power in the 1997 general election, it had in its manifesto the promise to reform the House of Lords:
In 2001 the government undertook a public consultation. This helped to create an unprecedented public debate on the issue of Lords reform, with 1101 consultation responses and numerous debates in Parliament and the media. Despite this huge level of interest in the issue, and a second public consultation, no consensus on the way forward has yet emerged.

History of reform
For details see: Lords Reform - History

Reform before 1997
Originally, the two Houses of Parliament had equal legislative powers. The agreement of both was necessary before a bill could be submitted to the Monarch for royal assent, which if granted made the bill an Act of Parliament. After the English Restoration, a constitutional convention arose that the House of Lords would defer to the House of Commons on measures to raise and spend money. The Parliament Act 1911 divided Bills into three classes.
Together with the Parliament Act 1949, these two acts enable the Commons (in exceptional circumstance) to pass legislation without approval from the Lords but subject to certain time delays. In effect, they give the House of Lords the power to delay legislation but not to prevent it. Since 1911 there have been various attempts to reform the Lords, but none tackled the powers of the House except the Parliament Act 1949 which reduced the suspensory veto to two sessions and one year. By the time of the 1997 general election there was still no consensus on comprehensive reform of the upper chamber of Parliaments.

Money bills which, failing consent from the Lords within one month, could receive royal assent without it.
Other bills on which the House of Lords could exercise a suspensory veto.
On any bill extending the maximum term of the House of Commons beyond five years, the House of Lords retained equal legislative powers. Powers as of 1997 Election
In 1999, the Government completed a deal with the Lords to remove most of the hereditary Peers and passed the House of Lords Act 1999 leaving amongst the majority of appointed Peers a rump of 92 Hereditary Peers until the second phase of reform was complete. These 92 were elected from within those who had had a right to be members of the House of Lords as a result of their hereditary status. This arrangement was intended to be purely temporary until "the second stage of reform was completed". This led to some claims (perhaps not all serious) that the elected Hereditary Lords were the only democratic members of the House.

Reform process since 1997
In 1999 a Royal Commission was appointed, under Baron Wakeham, to examine proposals for Lords Reform and make recommendations. It published its report (See Wakeham Report But in a written reply on 6 March the Government stated there was little prospect of a Joint Committee being established in the present Parliament due to a failure of cross-party discussions. On 26 April 2001 the Queen confirmed her intention to create 15 new non party-political members of the House of Lords termed "People's Peers". In the May 2001 general election, all three main parties included statements on House of Lords reform in their manifestos.

It should have around 550 members of which 67, 87 or 195 should be elected.
There should be an independent Appointments Commission responsible for all appointments.
The new second chamber should have the capacity to offer counsel from a range of sources. It should be broadly representative of society in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 21st century. It should work with the House of Commons to provide an effective check upon the Government. It should give the United Kingdom's constituent nations and regions, for the first time, a formally constituted voice in the Westminster Parliament.
The Commons should be the principal political forum, should have the final say in respect of all major public policy issues, including those expressed in the form of proposed legislation. The second chamber should have sufficient power, and the associated authority, to require the Government and the House of Commons to reconsider proposed legislation and take account of any cogent objections to it.
The House of Lords should contain a substantial proportion of people who are not professional politicians, who have continuing experience in a range of different walks of life and who can bring a broad range of expertise to bear on issues of public concern. and representation of the reformed second chamber should match that of the country as expressed in votes cast at the most recent general election but it should not be capable of being dominated by any one political party and continue to include people who can help it to maintain a philosophical, moral or spiritual perspective on public policy issues.
Possession of a peerage should no longer be a necessary qualification for membership
Provisions should be in place to permit ministers to be drawn from the Upper House
The upper House should ensure changes to constitution are not made without full and open debate and that there is increased scrutiny of secondary legislation
The commission could not recommend: a wholly or largely directly elected second chamber; indirect election from the devolved institutions (or local government electoral colleges) or from among British MEPs; random selection, or co-option. Royal Commission
On 7 November 2001, the government launched a white paper and consultation stating:
In the white paper, although the government said it "strongly endorsed" the Royal Commission's views, it listed its own proposals:

The remaining 92 Hereditary Peers were to be removed, the number capped after 10 years at 600 and 120 members to be elected to represent the nations and the regions.
It was to include a significant minority of independent members; Its political membership should be broadly representative of the main parties' relative voting strengths as reflected in the previous General Election; Membership was to be separated from the peerage which would continue as a honour; There should be increased representation of women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds;No group in society should in future have privileged hereditary access to the House; *The House of Lords would remain subject to the pre-eminence of the House of Commons in discharging its functions; Its principal function should continue to be to consider and revise legislation; to scrutinise the executive; and to debate and report on public issues;
The statutory Appointments Commission would manage the balance and size of the House appoint the independent members, and to assure the integrity of those nominated by political parties.
The overall balance between, elected, nominated and ex officio members, and the balance between political and independent members;
Whether elections to the Lords should be linked to General Elections, those for the European Parliament, or over time linked to those from devolved and regional bodies within the UK;
The length of term for elected members;
The term of appointment;
What grounds should lead to statutory expulsion from the House;
Should there be a change from an expenses-based system of remuneration. White paper and first consultation
On 11 December 2002 the Joint Committee published its first report On 4 February 2003, the Commons and House of Lords voted on the seven options proposed by the joint committee and the Commons also voted on an amendment to abolish the upper House completely:
After this series of votes where the Commons failed to back a single option and the Lords only a fully appointed House, Robin Cook the leader of the Commons said:
With widely differing views in the Joint Committee, its report on 9 May 2003 effectively passed the initiative back to the Government. But nine members of the Joint Committee issued a statement coinciding with the publication which stated:
Creation of Department for Constitutional Affairs In June 2003, Tony Blair announced the creation of a new department to oversee constitutional change with Lord Falconer as its first Secretary of State. The department was tasked with:
When in 2003 Lord Falconer signalled the governments preference for an all appointed House of Lords, three members of the Liberal Democrats issued a statement:
Ministers responded saying

Establishment of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.
Creation of a new Supreme Court to replace the existing system of Law Lords operating as a committee of the House of Lords.
Reform of the Speakership of the House of Lords.
New arrangements for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business. Votes of February 2003
In September 2003, the Department of Constitutional Affairs issued Constitutional Reform: Next Steps for the House of Lords, which gave as its main proposals:
The paper also started a second consultation, on the Appointments Commission for the House of Lords requesting submissions on how the Appointments Commission itself would be appointed, even though no other alternatives to an appointed Commission had been considered. Reaction to the paper was hostile: for example, Lord Goodhart, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Constitutional Affairs, said "the overwhelming reaction I have is a feeling of contempt and betrayal." that the government would not proceed with legislation to enact the proposals in the consultation. Although this suggested a lack of support for their proposals from the consultation, when the statistical analysis was published on 22 April 2004 the report stated that on the main issue (2a):
With such an apparently high level of support, it is unclear why the government choose not to proceed. The only insight available is unofficial reports putting the actual level of support at closer to third.
Moreover, as the government published most of the responses to both consultations, it is possible to see that many of these responses were highly critical of both the Government's proposal and the consultation process; some even went on to complain that the UK government breached its own code of conduct for consultations by failing to mention many of the new ideas arising from both consultations.
In the 2005 general election, all three parties included statements on reform of the House of Lords in their manifestos with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats promising "substantially"/"predominantly" elected Chambers. In December 2005, the Constitution Unit, part of the University College of London's School of Public Policy, released research findings showing "surprising levels of support from MPs and the public for the Lords to vote down government proposals":

A fully Appointed House of Lords
Removal of the remaining 92 Hereditary Peers
Establishment of a statutory independent Appointments Commission accountable to Parliament which would determine numbers and timings of appointments, select independent members of the House to oversee party nominations 2006 discussions
On 22 January 2007 the Power Inquiry launched a campaign for greater citizen involvement and provided statistics showing that 68% of the public felt a jury of the general public should decide "the future of the House of Lords," 17% thought elected politicians should decide and 9% appointed Civil servants.

Public opinion
On 8 February 2007, the Government published a new white paper Using the Alternative Vote for legislative proposals would have been a precedent for the UK Parliament. Resistance by Members on all sides of the House of Commons caused Leader of the House of Commons Jack Straw to drop this proposal on 19 February. The free vote was therefore held under traditional Parliamentary procedures.

2007 white paper
In March 2007 the Houses of Commons and Lords debated the proposals in the 2007 white paper and voted on a similar series of motions to those voted on in 2003. Unexpectedly, the House of Commons voted by a large majority for an all-elected Upper House. One week later, the House of Lords retorted by voting for an all-appointed House by a larger majority.
After the Commons vote, it turned out that some MPs supporting a fully appointed House had voted tactically for a fully elected House as the option likely to be least acceptable to the House of Lords. This called into question the significance of the larger majority achieved for 100% elected than that achieved for 80% elected. However, examination of the names of MPs voting at each division in the Commons shows that, of the 305 who voted for the 80% elected option, 211 went on to vote for the 100% elected option. Given that this vote took place after the vote on 80% – whose result was already known when the vote on 100% took place – this shows a clear preference in the Commons for a fully elected Upper House over the only other option that passed, since any MP who favoured 80% over 100% would have voted against the latter motion, having already secured their preferred outcome (76 MPs – including Jack Straw, his shadow Theresa May and Opposition Leader David Cameron – did exactly that). Had all the votes been held in the contrary order, those 211 would have voted against the 80% motion, which would consequently have fallen.
There was strong opinion about the votes. Lord McNally, the Liberal Democrat leader in the Lords said the Lords decision:
Prior to the debate Lord Lipsey, former Economics Editor of the Sunday Times, estimated the cost of the plans in the white paper at £1.092 billion over a 15 year term,  :

End the by-elections for hereditary peers and turn the remaining ones into de facto life peers and finally end hereditary entry into our Upper House.
Create a Statutory Appointments Commission to replace Prime Ministerial patronage for new peers.
Authorise the government to proceed with a retirement package which should reduce the average age and decrease the present House of 740 by possibly 200.
Enable peerages to be removed from those guilty of serious offences on the same basis as the Commons. Votes of March 2007
On 19 July 2007 Jack Straw in his new position of Justice Secretary in the cabinet of Gordon Brown announced that "The Government is determined to proceed with this programme of reform with a view to its completion." . Jack Straw also stated that the powers of the chamber, the method of election, financial packages and the number of members will (yet again) be discussed by a cross-party working group. The opposition's response was to suggest that: "the real message in your statement today that Lords reform is on ice until after the next election".

The Brown Premiership
"Central to the future House of Lords is its composition. For the Lords to act with legitimacy as an effective and balanced second chamber, it must have the right form to deliver the range of roles and functions it needs". With 1101 submissions to the first consultation, several hundred to the second and many articles in the newspapers and various discussions, there were many different views on reform of the House of Lords. It is only possible to give a broad outline of the many different proposals and even then only those where the proposals were mentioned by a number of respondents.
Proposals are listed alphabetically

The range of options
Many legislatures, such as the parliaments of Sweden, Denmark and New Zealand (and within the UK, the Scottish Parliament) are unicameral, and do not have an upper house. Instead, scrutiny is carried out by parliamentary committees. A substantial minority of MPs voted for the outright abolition of the upper house in 2003, and it was Labour party policy until the late 1980s.
During the 2007 debates in the Lords, it was suggested by one Lord that the then relative strength of the Commons was close to a unicameral system.

Abolition
There was a considerable number of proposals in the consultation for an Upper House chosen by allotment (selection by lot). Proposals varied from a House chosen completely at random from the whole electorate to those where allotment was applied to smaller groups such as those volunteering or those selected in another way. Most proposals referred to the allotment of the governing juries in the original democracy in Ancient Greece, where selection by lot was considered to be more democratic than election:
However, at present within the UK, this form of selection is mainly restricted to the allotment of jurors. Opposition is based either on the practical need for some expertise amongst members of the upper chamber or on a belief that "Democracy means an elected second chamber".

Allotment/sortition
The reason that the UK almost uniquely (except the Canadian Senate) still retained an appointed House of Lords in 1997 was that, it was widely accepted that it worked effectively. In particular the large number of cross bench peers would be impossible to achieve in most electoral systems.
Those supporting a fully appointed House, reject the idea of a composite partly elected, party appointed House:
The main issues are:

Achieving a range of representation, bringing in those with skills and experience, allowing ex officio members and ensuring a continuity of membership
Maintaining the status and independence of the Lords without endangering the supremacy of the Commons
Maintaining the low cost of the present House
Preventing the possibility of a constitutional clash between appointed and elected members Appointment
By far the most commonly suggested proposal for reform amongst politicians is a combination of an elected and appointed House and this was the original proposal recommended by the Wakeham Report. Proponents suggest the combination would allow an appointed element to retain the skills and experience of the present House and elections would make it democratic without the problems of being fully elected which would allow the Upper House to challenge the primacy of the commons. Opponents say that the two types of members will inevitably conflict, voting for part of the House will have little support amongst an already sceptical electorate, and the lack of synergy will make it worse than either a fully elected or fully appointed house. Various proposals on the exact percentage of those elected and appointed have been produced:

In January 2002, the Conservatives unveiled plans for a 300 member "Senate", with 240 members elected by first past the post for 15 years
The Elect the Lords campaign set up by New Politics Network and Charter88 supports a predominantly elected second chamber.
In 2005, a cross party group of MPs chaired by Paul Tyler consisting of Ken Clarke, Robin Cook, Dr Tony Wright and Sir George Young proposed a 70% elected second chamber, elected in thirds at each general election using the single transferable vote. This proposal was largely adopted by the Power Commission. Combination
Under this proposal, a jury would appoint some or all members of the chamber so retaining the skills and experience of the present House and also making its selection more democratic not seen before the second consultation where it was supported by around 10% of submissions.

Democratic appointments
Many countries have directly elected Upper Chambers but they try to make their electoral systems for the second chamber as distinct as possible from the first chamber by holding elections on a different cycle or electing only a proportion of members on each occasion..
Most proponents support a system of Proportional Representation
The Tories have called for the second chamber to be elected by First Past the Post. Election
A large number of hereditary peers were crossbenchers with a wide range of interests outside politics - a valuable asset to Parliament. A hereditary right, which passes across the generations, may have the benefit of encouraging a longer-term perspective but this is at the expense of creating a divisive society. Moreover, in practice, the hereditary Peers had a natural bias on many issues (e.g., their support for the Conservative Party). There are now few in current British politics who openly support this form of selection. However, there is a feeling in many sections of British society that an independent house is needed to check the government and it has been suggested that this was achieved by the combination of hereditary and life peers pre-1997 era. Also, the more conservative sections of the political establishment still have sympathies towards this type of an upper house.

Heredity
About 30% of overseas second chambers are elected by indirect methods, including France, Ireland the Netherlands and South Africa. The electoral college often consists of members of local authorities or regional assemblies, and may include members of the primary chamber. There are various proposals:

Elections by Regional Development Agencies and voluntary regional chambers, the London Assembly would "would demonstrate a direct connection between these other bodies and the central institutions at Westminster" and because "many of these bodies had themselves been elected... it could therefore reinforce the democratic nature of an otherwise nominated House"
A variety of institutions such as the Royal Society and charities, are able to elect or appoint a member. Other groups could include the TUC, the GMC, and the Law Society. This would also involve keeping the Law Lords and Lords Spiritual.
It has also been suggested that leaders of local councils (who have already been elected to their position) sit in the House of Lords. Indirect election/appointment
A system proposed by musician and activist Billy Bragg (and endorsed by the Economist magazine) whereby the share of each party's votes at each general election is aggregated and each party is allocated a number of places proportionately using a closed list system[3]. Each elector would have one vote which would both determine their local MP and the composition of the Upper House.
The advantages of this system are claimed to be that: there would be only one election campaign to fund, it does not waste votes because votes for minority parties will count in the Upper House and so it should improve voter turnout, and as the upper house has no direct vote it has no separate mandate and so the Commons will remain supreme. Critics however see a single vote as a choice between voting for an MP or voting for the upper house; if large numbers choose to vote for the upper house instead of their MP it would undermine the mandate of the Commons and create a confused election (for example MPs might be ousted by a poor performance of their party in the Upper House and vice versa).

Secondary mandate

At present, the Scottish Parliament has devolved powers over areas like Health and Education. The Scottish Parliament does not have an upper chamber but instead MSPs scrutinise legislation in a committee system. This means that, for example, legislation on English health and education is subject to the House of Lords, whilst Scottish legislation is not.
There are some concerns that a reformed upper house may be "a feeder body" into the lower house (Charlotte Atkins MP) as has occurred in other countries with bicameral parliaments. Various proposals have been put forward to prevent this happening, including a five-year ban on former members of the Lords seeking election to the Commons. Others are concerned that the upper house may be filled by MPs who lose their seats.
The House of Lords has a judicial function, which will be clearly affected by the reform process, although there are already plans for a separate Supreme Court.
The future of peerages. One proposal is that peerages should remain, as part of the honours system, but that they should no longer be linked to membership of the upper house.
The name. Were the link between peerages and membership of the upper house to end, the name of the upper house might also change as a consequence. The Liberal Democrats, have proposed Senate, as in other countries. The Labour government has not put forward any proposed names, instead referring to the "reformed chamber" [4] although the Leader of the House of Commons committee has promised to consult on a final name. Further reading

Allotment
Election
Appointment
House of Lords
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
Canadian Senate Reform

Alexander von Nordmann (May 24, 1803 - June 25, 1866) was a Finnish zoologist.
Nordmann was a professor at Odessa, and collected natural history specimens in southern Russia. He became professor of Zoology at the university of Helsinki in 1849.