Talk:Writ of acceleration

message: This link has the text of the writs which someone may wish to add http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.talk.royalty/browse_thread/... Alci12 13:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Is writ of acceleration also available to children of viscount and baron ?
Yes 20:35, 29 Sep. 2006 (UTC)
: Yes *but* only if the peerage holder has a second title (ie a another viscountcy or barony) to give to their heir apparent.Alci12 20:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't possible that a person could be "accelerated" and then elected as a representative hereditary peer. The writ of acceleration is a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, which hereditary peers do not receive unless elected. The only way would be for the hereditary peers to elect one of their own heirs-apparent as their representative, who then received the writ, and I doubt very much if it is possible for a commoner to stand for election. Opera hat (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. (1) Writs of summons (including ones in acceleration) are only issued for excepted hereditary peers, life peers, and lords spiritual, and as far as I know, by that title that qualifies them. (2) Excepted hereditary peers are elected among hereditary peers. Accelerated peers before their acceleration are commoners, and thus ineligible. So a writ in acceleration may not be issued, if the person is not elected, which is impossible for a commoner. No new writs of acceleration may be issued, nor any new baronies by writ created.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.59.27 (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: Was the legal situation of accelerated peers the same as that os ordinary peers? I mean, were they tried by peers if accused of a crime, or free from arrest in civil trials, or protected from scandalum magnatum, as ordinary peers were? If somebody knows the answer, it would be interesting that he/she add a new paragraph explainins such points. --85.57.72.226 (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal situation 

message: Ideally, there would be an official effective date for each person elevated but the summons date likely differs sometime from the date it becomes effective. The more recent writs citing an issue number in London Gazette are mostly helpful but frustrating when the dates in the articles first column differ from the dates shown in the citation. The article dates Baron Gower as 22 November 1826 but the Dec. 1st issue of London Gazette states the writ date as November 29, 1826. Another writ here uses 5 September 1876 for Baron Ashford (William Keppell) but the September 5th issue of London Gazette so cited states the writ date as September 2, 1876. If consensus can be reached on what the date we're listing is supposed to represent, I can check those cited and standardize but lacking both month and day on the first one may hint there will be compromises because public sources don't agree.  Wclaytong (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies on effective dates 

message: converted the dates in the tables from "5 February 1533" to "1533, 5 February", a reverse-American format that as far as I know is not used by anyone anywhere in the world. If the point was that the dates column be sortable, I believe there is a better way. —Tamfang (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Tamfang. You are, of course perfectly right right. I tried to quickly find a particular writ of acceleration by its year in the table in question and found it not easy because of the (correct) date format used in the table. So I changed it, making it an format that seems to be not acceptable according to MOS:DATEFORMAT. You say there is a better solution. I looked in WP:DATEOVER and found nothing really suitable. Please tell me. I am very keen to hear about it since there are other tables sorted by date that have the same problem, notably timeline tables I inserted in biographical articles, see e.g. the (collapsed) table entitled Timeline in the article Antoine Hamilton, immediately before the Works section. Please have a look. I would like to correct them all. With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I've put in those fields but have not stumbled on the syntax to make a table hidden AND sortable AND have an extra top row. Argh. —Tamfang (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format