Talk:Peerage Act 1963

message: Mr St Clair then accepted the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds, thereby disqualifying himself from the House
List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead claims he took that office instead. Which is correct? Psmith 22:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malcolm St Clair 

message: Version before recent changes:
:A peer who disclaims the peerage and his wife lose all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage. 
Iainscott's version:
:A peer (and thier family) who disclaims the peerage lose all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage. 
My version:
:A peer who disclaims the peerage loses all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage; if he is a married man, so does his wife.
The first version is grammatically odd, as Iain spotted. However "family" is not what it says in the Act (). It specifically says wife. The fact that a disclaimed peer also disclaims his subsidiary titles presumably means that his eldest son cannot use it as a courtesy title. However, I do wonder whether this means that all titles are lost by the family; for example does his mother, if circumstances otherwise permit, retain her title as dowager? Iain's version implies that she would lose the title, and I'm not convinced that the act says that. --rbrwr± 13:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --rbrwr± 13:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! I had assumed that the title, and all titles derived from it, just sort of disappeared until the chap who disclaimed it died... thinking about it, the way the act has it does make more logical sense! Iain 09:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wives and family 

message: I notice that there's an average of ten hereditary peerages created per year up until about 1964, and after that almost none - and usually then mainly for members of the royal family. Is there any reason why this is so, as the article doesn't address this? What i'm getting at is this: is there some sort of policy (official or unofficial) to let hereditary titles eventually dwindle or die out through attrition? For instance, why aren't former PMs made hereditary earls any more?  [[121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is discussed in hereditary peer, where it more sensibly belongs than this article. I have added a wikilink to this page now as it seemed odd that it wasn't linked from this article. JRawle (Talk) 10:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more hereditary peerages 

message: In the list of Disclaimed Peerages, the link to Alan Sanderson points to a recording engineer who was born in 1970, but the man in question, Alan Lindsay Sanderson, formerly Lord Sanderson of Ayot, is a psychiatrist born in 1931. I have removed the link to the sound engineer Alan Sanderson. 79.76.115.27 (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The former 2nd Lord Sanderson of Ayot died 16 Dec 2022 146.200.94.159 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alan Lindsay Sanderson (formerly Lord Sanderson of Ayot) v. Alan Sanderson (the recording engineer) 

message: It's not clear that the Stansgate Peerage was the first to be renounced, Tony Benn's diary suggests that when he was on his way into the House of Lords to sign the paperwork to renounce his peerage coming in the other direction another was on his way out having already done so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.63.162 (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: First Peerage to be renounced

message: I'm curious about this as I note a number of peers, Lord this and Earl that, who served as prime ministers during the 18th and 19th Centuries.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.248.49 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still permitted for a peer to be a minister, since a minister may be appointed from either House; indeed, the current cabinet includes both Jonathan Hill, Baron Hill of Oareford and Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi, who sit in the House of Lords. It is also technically possible for a peer to be PM, but this has happened only once since the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury resigned in 1902. The last Prime Minister to sit in the Lords was the 14th Earl of Home, who was appointed Prime Minister on 19 October 1963 and disclaimed his peerage four days later, on 23 October 1963. It was not strictly necessary for him to do so; see Alec Douglas-Home#Successor to Macmillan - but since 1923 it had not been considered acceptable for the PM to sit in the Lords, see George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston#Passed Over for Prime Minister, 1923. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be pedantic a minister could legally come from neither house. It is a convention not a matter of law that they do.Garlicplanting (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

text: The situation is further confused by the fact that certain Irish and (until 1963) Scottish peers could sit in the House of Commons, as could courtesy peers. So Lord North (heir apparent of the Earl of Guilford) and Lord Palmerston (an Irish viscount) both sat in the House of Commons (and served as PM as such) despite being Lords. Proteus (Talk) 10:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which makes this sentence puzzling:  —Tamfang (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: When was ban on Peers in House enacted?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peerage Act 1963. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605022529/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjournal/235/141.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjournal/235/141.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe the current list of hereditary peeress's who took their seat after the 1963 act is incorrect, some of those included never took their seats in the House of Lords. This was not uncommon, numerous hereditary peers chose to never sit (in 1999 at their abolition roughly 80 of the 800ish hereditary peers hadn't taken their seats). I've adjusted the list accordingly with a source from the House of Lords Library available from the Parliament.uk website. ToastButterToast (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female hereditary peers