Talk:Peerage

Missing image
Cscr-featured.png
Featured article star

Peerage is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Peerage title typo?

Hi, I noticed in the article the text "(One Marquesses - the Marquess Camden - bears a territorial title but does not use 'of'."

Does this mean that the current holder is a woman, or is the plural just a typo? I'm American, so it's hard to know for sure. Thanks! Pakaran 18:30, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That is a typo. "Marchioness" is the feminine of "Marquess". There are no Marchionesses in their own right. john 21:43, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Peerage title tradition

I have seen pagest that assert that the bearer of the Marquessate of Douro is the Marquess Douro, and not the Marquess of Douro, though the same may not be necessarily correct: [1] (http://laura.chinet.com/html/titles02.html). -- Lord Emsworth 22:36, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

P.S. It is probably "of Douro," as that style is used by Britannica: [2] (http://search.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=115708&tocid=30136&query=duke%20nukem&ct=). -- Lord Emsworth 22:37, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

It is "Marquess Douro". The current heir to the Dukedom uses "Marquess of Douro", however, presumably because he thinks it sounds better. Proteus 20:05 GMT 6th January 2004

Yes, Burke's gives "Marquess Douro"... of course, the official secondary title of the Dukes of Atholl is something like "Marquess of Tullibardin", but they've always used "Tullibardine", and so forth... john 20:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Crown office lists Camden and Townsend as the two Marquessates that do not have "of", likewise only Grey is the only Earldom without "of" http://www.dca.gov.uk/dept/titles.htm#part8 The problem is that Douro is in Portugal (or is it Spain), so political correctness might play a part too. Arthur Wellesley was 1st Marquess of Douro, before he was 1st Duke of Wellington, and "relegated" the Marequessate to being used as a mere courtesy title. garryq 12:11, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

images?

Does anybody have images of the peers' coronets or robes? -- Emsworth 02:46, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

"Thus, it is likely that the prestige of the hereditary peerage will be reduced, and therefore, some might call for its abolition."

I have to agree with the removal of this phrase by an anonymous user, and I doubt the NPOV of the preceding paragraph as well. I don't see any logical basis for either of this sentence's two assertions: firstly, the peerage has been largely disassociated with wealth for a long time, since political rather than economic success has been the main criterion for admission for more than a century; secondly, people have already called for its abolition, and have been largely ignored, and I see no relevance in pointing out that more people may call for its abolition in the future. Most political and social institutions have been criticised at some point by some group or other, and I don't see why the peerage should be singled out by it being implied that it is doomed to be abolished. Judging by examples in other countries, nobility seems to last longer than monarchy in most places, and I don't see the British monarchy being in any danger of abolition. Proteus 15:31, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

opening paragraph

The peerage is a system of titles of honour unique to Britain, and is one part of the British honours system. Peers were, historically, title holders entitled to be summoned to the House of Lords. The families of title-holders are not peers (though the wives of peers are traditionally known as peeresses). This is a fundamental distinction from the Continental system of titles, where families rather than individuals are ennobled, and where more than one person can hold the same title simultaneously.

Please reword this so the naive reader (such as myself) can get a grasp of the system. Currently, I feel this paragraph is written with a bit of an assumption that the reader already knows the topic at hand. Sincerely, Kingturtle 19:55, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization consistency of the word "peerage" ?

This article has several instances of Peerage with the P capitalized when it occurs in the middle of the sentence. Is this proper? There are also many instances with the P in lowercase. Shouldn't it be consistent one way or the other? Bevo 15:27, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the article, following the standard of capitalizing when referring to the Peerage as a whole, or to the Peerage of England, Scotland, etc, but otherwise using the lower case. -- Emsworth 18:16, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Pictures for this article

I think we should have Tony Benn, perhaps someone like Lord Bath, Byron, Lucan and to represent life peers, perhaps someone like Andrew Lloyd Weber or Waheed Alli? Mintguy (T) 15:47, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Typo?

many Princes, however, are granted peerates separately.

Is "peerates" a typo for "peerages", or a very obscure synonym? Marnanel 06:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Typo, I think. john 07:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Slight reword and question

I reworded the following sentence slightly, since I had to read it twice to get the point:

until the number of Irish peers ... reached (was reduced to) one-hundred, the Sovereign could not create a new Irish peerage until three previous titles became extinct.

But that brings up a question in my mind; how was the Peerage of Ireland (particularly those granted after the Act of Union) affected by the creation of the Irish Free State? I've checked the other pages and didn't really see an answer; are they just all now peerages of northern Ireland? -TimeLord mbw 18:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is still the Peerage of Ireland. The Irish Peers lost the right to elect representative peers to the House of Lords. I assume they have no particular rights in the Republic of Ireland (except maybe some heraldic ones), but presumably have similar rights to other peers in the U.K. (except they cannot renounce their peerages - c.f. the present Earl of Longford). I think there's a complex juridical relationship between the Republic and the UK on matters like this...if jtdirl was still around, I'm sure he could discuss this in more depth, but he seems to have vanished. john 19:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Interesting; I guess what was boggling my mind is "where" (for lack of a better word) do the Irish peerages exist? I suppose (with my ingrained American thinking) I was having a hard time imagining the peerages existing in the Republic of Ireland, with no monarchy. And for the same reason, I'm probably trying to subconsciously tie titles to land more than is valid. I think things like this interest me not so much per se, but more as logic problems. :-) -TimeLord mbw 20:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Timelordmbw, abolishing the hereditary right to sit in the Lords shows that now a peerage is just a grand name, not tied to anyplace, even if called “of Longford”. Earl Grey isn’t ‘of’ anywhere.

Calling Peerages “of England”, “of Scotland” etc was need to sort out seniority (it 300 years and Elizabeth II has just sorted out seniority of Royal numbers).

Lots of republics have titles of honor. Bill Clinton still gets called “President” but President “of” what? :) garryq 14:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One might also ask the same questions on the Peerage of England, Scotland and Great Britain. These do not really exist any further in the fashion of independent entities, yet the Peerages named for them continue to persist. When these entities were distinct, the peers were indeed peers in distinct kingdoms, but the same cannot be said to remain the case. -- Emsworth 22:14, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'd add that French noble titles do exist, despite that country being a republic, and are protected in the law of France. I believe titles in the Peerage of Ireland have some status in the laws of both the UK and the Republic of Ireland (that is to say, the Republic of Ireland allows its citizens who are peers of Ireland to use that title on their passport, and protects the holders of said titles from imposture), although I'm not sure of the rules in the latter case. This is clearly material which ought to be discussed in the Peerage of Ireland article. I shall check the archives of alt.talk.royalty to see if there's any discussion of this. john 04:12, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's partly why I mentioned it; I had thought perhaps this was covered in an article I hadn't read. Hadn't thought about French nobility. Of course, I know even less about that than the little I know about UK peerages; were they granted in the same way as in the UK, i.e. completely from the top down? Or did French titles precede the French crown? I think that's what I have a hard time figuring out about Ireland; all the Irish peerages devolved from the Irish crown, which was held in the British crown, but now the Irish crown no longer exists, as such, so how do the peerages that sprang from it continue to exist? Whereas with what Lord E. says, the English and Scottish crowns do still exist, even though they have no independent existence from the UK crown. It does make sense that the modern Republic would protect the extant titles of its citizens, too. -TimeLord mbw 06:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

French titles tended to be top down, as well. Basically, in France, they are considered personal property, and are protected like any other personal property. They have intermittently been banned (after the Revolution, I believe, but then restored by Napoleon - or perhaps he only created a new nobility, and the old nobility was restored by Louis XVIII; then again in the 2nd Republic, but restored by Napoleon III. The Third Republic, initially dominated by monarchists, didn't abolish titles when it came in, I think). Other countries that have become republic have officially banned titles - Italy has, I think. Certainly Austria. In Germany, titles became a part of your personal name. Thus, the current Hohenzollern pretender's name is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen, with his last name being "Prinz von Preußen." As to the Irish case, I assume that the treaty creating the Irish Free State made some provision for the Irish peerage. The Irish Free State itself remained, of course, a monarchy, and Ireland didn't officially become a republic until 1949. So, again, I'm not really sure about the specifics of the Irish case, although I'm fairly sure that there's some sort of special arrangement going on in terms of treaties with the UK, and so forth. And of course, the Irish crown does still kind of exist, in the form of the UK's control of Northern Ireland. john 06:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

At any rate, I've posted a query about this on alt.talk.royalty, so hopefully one of the smart people there will explain the situation. john 06:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, the situation seems to be that the Republic doesn't officially recognize Irish peerage titles in any way, but it also makes no effort to restrict their use, or declare them invalid, and generally tolerates all title use. There is, however, no official body, in either Ireland or the UK, that regulates the Irish peerage, which thus seems to continue only by inertia. In theory, the House of Lords would be the body to regulate the Irish peerage, but I don't think it has particularly done so. john 20:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Renouncing a peerage was a device to allow hereditary peers to sit it the UK Commons. Irish peers were not called to the Lords, so could sit in the commons if elected. Frank Pakenham sat in the House of Lords, as Viscount Pakenham, but after his brother’s death in 1961 was referred to as The Earl of Longford as a courtesy. A further confusion, when hereditary peers were denied seats in the Lords Longford automatically received a Life Peerage along with all First Creations of Peers. As they have no constitutional role, the republic simply ignores peers. Disputes about who should be head of the family and call themselves “2nd Lord X” should be sorted out by the family and do not concern the government, as long as someone pays the 1st Lord X’s taxes. It would be interesting to see how an Irish title could be called out of abeyance.:garryq 13:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Spiritual Peers

Several sources describe the Lords Spiritual as "peers," while others assert the opposite. What is the general opinion as to which is correct?

Lords Spiritual ARE peers

"The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first peer of England ... The Archbishop of York ('Primate of England') is the third peer in the United Kingdom ... Diocesan Bishops of England in the Lords are also peers of the kingdom and of Parliament." (Debrett's (http://www.debretts.co.uk/peerage_and_baronetage/lords_spiritual.html))
The Lords are technically the "House of Peers" (Erskine May (http://home.freeuk.com/don-aitken/emay299.html); Companion to the Standing Orders and guide to the Proceedings of the Lords (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldcomp/ctso55.htm))
"In the case of a diocesan bishop his proper title is the Lord Bishop of A., whether he be a spiritual peer or not." (1997 Britannica (http://www.pinetreeweb.com/bp-peerage.htm))
"The Bishop, as a spiritual peer, sat in the House of Lords, and no doubt watched over the interests of the county in a general way." (The Constitutional Beginnings of North Carolina by John Spencer Bassett (http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/bassettnc/bassettnc.html))

Lords Spiritual ARE NOT peers

"Not every lord, even one with a seat in the House of Lords, is a peer. Bishops, for instance, are spiritual lords." (Burke's (http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page66-lord.asp))
"[T]he spiritual lords are not now regarded as peers." (1911 EB "Peerage" (http://7.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PE/PEERAGE.htm))

Discussion

You are welcome to offer additional support for either position. -- Emsworth 20:50, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

It might be added that Bishops only feature in the CP if they also hold a hereditary Peerage title. Personally I think they key word is "regarded" in the 1911 EB: someone who is not regarded as a peer must technically be one, otherwise the sentence would not make sense. However, Bishops cease to be Peers when they leave the House. Dbiv 17:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I will add to the article on the presumption that they are peers, but will note that they are not "regarded" by many as peers. -- Emsworth 20:52, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

From Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

"It is said, that this does not extend to bishops; who, though they are lords of parliament, and sit there by virtue of their baronies which they hold jure ecclesiae, yet are not ennobled in blood, and consequently not peers with the nobility."

"THE commonalty, like the nobility, are divided into several degrees; and, as the lords, though different in rank, yet all of them are peers in respect of their nobility, so the commoners though some are greatly superior to others, yet all are in law peers, in respect of their want of nobility."

There seems little in the way of unequivocal statements that bishops are peers by any worthwhile authority. On the contrary, many authorities specifically state that bishops should not be held to be peers. Andrew Yong 23:26, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Blackstone suggests that bishops are not "peers with the nobility." Perhaps they are not equal to the nobility, as they are not ennobled in blood. Still, Debrett's seems to suggest that they are "peers of the kingdom." -- Emsworth 02:36, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Another quotation:

"for though bishops, on account of the baronies annexed to their bishopricks, are clearly lords of parliament, yet, their blood not being ennobled, they are not universally allowed to be peers with the temporal nobility..."

"Universally allowed..." indicates a disputed point, I believe. -- Emsworth 14:19, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, and according to the 1911 EB article on Peerage, which has a great deal on this, there seems to have been a dispute in the reign of Richard II on this issue. The bishops tried to claim both their position outside secular jurisdiction, but maintaining the privileges of peerage. They metaphorically fell between two stools, and eventually ended up with neither.

"The Standing Orders of the House of Lords for 1625 contain the statement that Bishops are only Lords of Parliament and not Peers (Lords Journals, iii. 349). In 1640 the Lords Spiritual were altogether excluded from the House of Lords by act of parliament, and were not brought back until the second year of the Restoration. From that period there has been no question as to their position."

While in early times they claimed immunity from secular trial altogether, he bishops seem never have attempted to claim trial by the Lords and indeed as a rule never participated in the trial of temporal lords, however, at the trial of the seven bishops in 1688 (by common jury), it is taken for granted, bizarrely, that they are peers and have the privilege of petitioning and advising the King.

I think the best thing would be to admit and explain that this is a point of dispute Andrew Yong 17:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very well, I'll add the section soon. -- Emsworth 22:58, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts on spiritual peers: 1) are all diocesan bishops spiritual peers, or only those with seats in the Lords? Are Welsh and Northern Irish bishops in the Church in Wales and the Church of Ireland spiritual peers? Also, it should clarify about the disestablishments of the Welsh and Irish churches. john 20:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Only those with seats in the Lords seem to be peers, and only for the duration of their service in that House. What do you think of the division of the article (which was about 92 KB long)? -- Emsworth 22:00, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Too many external links

This is the same complaint I brought up in the Jew article - there are too many external links. The rule of thumb is that there should be at least one or two, but not more than 10. This article currently has 28. Remember, wikipedia is not a link repository. →Raul654 14:36, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

They aren't just external links, though, they're references from which the article has been written. There is a large number of them due to the immense amount of research that has gone into this article. It's not like someone's just listed 30 pages connected to the Peerage. From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "But of course there's nothing wrong with adding both lists of links and lists of on-line references you used in writing an article." Proteus (Talk) 15:01, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

These sites that have been linked to have all been used in the individual parts of the series. I thought it convenient to locate all of the references centrally. -- Emsworth 17:36, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Peer Usage

I was under the impression that though a Baronet was created to fill the ranks of nobility, it was a peerage title nonetheless? How is it not? Also, the honorific title "The Right Honorble" has appeared before as a salutation. Especially in British parliament, considering it being casually used or not.

Baronet is not a peer. It is just under the lower boundary of peerage = barons. Baronet = little baron. 62.78.120.237 19:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A question of privileges

I've read in several different fantasy books that certain hair styles were common to a certain circumstance - firstborn sons were encouraged to wear their hair longer, certain nobility could use certain birds in falconry, etc. Is there any truth to this, and if so, could yuo direct me to a guide on it?

POV?

If peerageis the system of nobility in the United Kingdom, then there should be no other articles on peerage, such as the Peerage of France...

There needs to be some NPOV cleanup on every single article on aristocratic title in Wikipedia to be non-England centric! Most articles (list articles as well) seem to assume everything is English or part of the UK by default, with footnoting the rest of the world.

Just some thoughts. 132.205.45.148 21:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term "Peerage" is almost always used in the British context. The same applies, for example, to House of Lords; the article concerns the British House, even though there has been an Irish body of the same name. -- Emsworth 21:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

almost is the kicker. There should be a disambiguation page linked off the top. Still, though, the articles on titles need work since they are UK-centric, like Duke was/is, when they should not be. 132.205.45.110 18:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

House of Lords is practically a British thing. However, peerage is a term used of several other countries, such as France. There were pairs de France, and they formed the Peerage of France... 62.78.120.237 19:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

American Princess

The US tv show "American Princess" announced that the winner will be granted a British noble title. Queen Elizabeth II is the only person in UK entitled to grant noble titles. Will Queen grant title or not ? If granted a title, I don't think the winner can use her title since she is not British citizen.

User:Siyac 13:42, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

I have removed the following paragraph added by an anonymous user:

"As the UK does not have a written constitution, Peerage titles are social constructs whose existance are dependent on citizens continued use of them. As the UK continues its transformation towards a meritocracy this tradition is currently dying out, with many 'peers' now referred to by their regular names in the national press and popular parlance. There is no law demanding that the titles must be used."

This passage is somewhat misleading. Firstly, the UK does have a constitution, partly written and partly unwritten; it is merely uncodified. Secondly, the passage implies that Peerages have no recognition in the law/ constitution of the UK, when such is clearly untrue. The uncodified constitution certainly recognises Peerage titles, as evidenced, for instance, by the right to sit in the Lords and by the Privilege of Peerage. Thirdly, it would be inaccurate to state that the UK is becoming a meritocracy. The government does include meritocratic elements, but it is not a meritocracy, nor is it becoming one. Fourthly, the use of quotation marks around the word peers seems to have certain POV implications. Fifthly, "regular names" is not an appropriate term: a peer's title is, in effect, his name. Sixthly, although many peers use so-called "regular names," most do not; the use of "Lord Such-and-Such" is still prevalent. Seventhly, there is no law forcing anyone to use any title, but all official documents, etc., do use them. Hence, the passage in general was quite misleading, leading to my (hopefully correct) decision to remove it. -- Emsworth 20:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sixth rank?

The Scottish "lord of Parliament" isn't really a sixth rank, is it? It's the same rank as the English "baron", is it not? —Ashley Y 01:51, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Peerage"

Categories: Wikipedia featured articles