Talk:House of Lords

message: Adding the "ref improve" tag because this article suffers from an embarrassing lack of sources. Some sections have no sources at all while others are just generally lacking. For such a key institution in British politics, its page should be well sourced. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag: Ref Improve 

message: This edit restored a sourced claim about the institution's supposed full and formal name. However, the actual sources cited for this are simply two petitions presented by members of the public, who address the House in such terms. As with the same point for the Commons - where at least there is an official source recommending this construction for petitions - it's not clear whether we can claim that this is therefore the official, formal name of the institution; it's just a form of address apparently used for specific contexts. I can't find much non-WP derived or non-petition based online evidence for this name. We surely need something that explicitly claims this is the formal name of the place before we assert as much here. N-HH talk/edits 16:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's been put back in again, with this edit, without any response to the above or any cited justification. Can we get an official source that confirms this name please, as the formal title not simply one means of address? Also, can we settle what colour we want the background and the portcullis? A slow edit-war over an infobox seems a little pointless ... N-HH talk/edits 09:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full title 

message: I count 17 Non-affiliated members of the House of Lords not 19. Any consensus to change? Francium12 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I count 16, if we're going by the list here. - Chrism would like to hear from you 03:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm. I've mentioned the discrepancies in figures on the page.  I find it difficult to believe that Lord Taylor isn't a non-affiliated member....unless he self-identities as a crossbencher now...Francium12 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-affiliated members of the House of Lords

message: The box on the right groups Peers as HM Government or HM (ml) Opposition.
The way this has been done contains the two incumbent parties as the government,
with everybody else as the opposition, including the Lords Spiritual and
the Crossbenchers.  I'm not sure whether this was done to reflect their function
or their seating arrangements, but either way, it makes no sense that members
of an established church would always be opposing its supreme leader. As for their
seating, they always sit on the Government side of the House. Although
non-aligned Peers could notionally be said to always be in opposition, I don't
think this is completely accurate for Crossbenchers, given their unique roles
and the fact that they don't sit on Government nor Opposition benches at all:
they have their own benches aligned across the House, facing the Lord Speaker.
It might be better if we re-grouped the list according to seating arrangements.
So the incumbent parties and Lords Spiritual are on the Government side, the
Opposition and non-aligned Peers are on the Opposition side, and a separate
grouping is created for the Crossbenchers. MaxwellEdisonPhD (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the listing of parties under the box to address your concerns. The image is a significant undertaking, and I would prefer more input before doing anything about it. And while I do see your concern, reflecting the actual seating arrangements would be somewhat difficult to do in an aesthetically pleasing way. I think the present arrangement is meant to reflect not so much government and opposition as such, but those taking the government whip and those not. Otherwise you are quite right, the Bishops and the Crossbenchers (including the non-affiliated, who I believe also sit on the cross benches, though I may be mistaken) are not considered opposition within the House. They are two of four distinct groupings. -Rrius (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest a better rough grouping is simply a three-way split between "Government" (basically Con & LD), "[Official] Opposition" (Lab) and a catch-all "Other" (which would includes bishops, cross-benchers, other/minor parties etc; ie the bottom three in table). I'm not sure relying on seating arrangements is that helpful, as they're quite mixed up (eg the bishops, as noted, plus the fact that due to space cross-benchers are not confined to the literal cross-benches but spill over to the opposition side). As a side point, when it comes to the opposition, I'm not sure how correct – and definitely how common – "Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition" is as a phrasing. N-HH talk/edits 09:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grouping of Peers 

message: The image: House of Lords current.svg.png is out of date because it shows UKIP as having only 2Lords, David Stevens, Baron Stevens of Ludgate has since joined the party from the Crossbenchers. Editors seem determined to constantly change the 3 back to a 2 because the image displayed has 2 purple seats. The image is wrong and is clearly causing too much confusion for editors to cope with, therefore it should be left out of the article until some1 decides to amend it! Just to confirm UKIP's 3 lords are: David Verney, 21st Baron Willoughby de Broke, Malcolm Pearson, Baron Pearson of Rannoch and David Stevens, Baron Stevens of Ludgate. Please see that this mistake is not made again. If we are to include an image it must be correct, as I say it is clearly causing too much confusion. 130.88.114.129 (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a BBC news story from September 2012  which says that Lord Stevens *will* become a UKIP member. However, as of right now, he is still shown as an Independent Conservative on the House of Lords website, which is updated daily:  Thom2002 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box image - "current composition" 

message: Can anyone provide a list of UK peers without citizenship ?
(User talk:Siyac) 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peers without UK citizenship 

message: This is now being repeatedly added to the lead, despite my having queried and reverted its initial inclusion. The NYT piece cited here does not mention the term and it is not up to individual WP editors to claim that cited sources "cannot actually refer to" something that they very explicitly do refer to or correct those sources as to what they "evidently" meant, when they said no such thing. I'm no expert on all this archaic and arcane twaddle, and maybe the NYT is not the best source for this sort of thing, but searching for "agnatic accession" doesn't reveal anything in this context. Plus, as far as I can tell, agnatic refers to the very general principle of descent through the male line; it is not specifically about male vs female heirs, which is a different point. I'm happy to have this explained to me and be proved wrong, but can the person adding this make that effort? Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I was too bold (and slightly messed up the terms myself), sorry for that. The NYT source doesn't actually refer to "male primogeniture" as claimed, only to "primogeniture". The former I understand to refer to "Male-preference cognatic primogeniture" which means that (like with the British monarch) male heirs inherit before their sisters, but daughters (and then their issue) can inherit if they have no brothers (so descent is not restricted to the "male line"). But the NYT gives two examples which cannot be male-preference cognatic primogeniture by their own description (the historic one in the first paragraph, and the case of "Earl and Countess of Clancarty, who have an 8-year-old daughter but no one to take over the family title"). And in fact our article Hereditary peer (without inline references, unfortunately) states: "More often, letters patent are used to create peerages. Letters patent must explicitly name the recipient of the title and specify the course of descent; the exact meaning of the term is determined by common law. Normally, the patent specifies the peer's heirs-male of the body as successors; in such a case, the rules of agnatic succession apply, meaning that succession is through the male line only." So agnatic succession is apparently the predominant rule for peerages, not male-preference cognatic primogeniture. But since agnatic succession is apparently considered a subcase of primogeniture, just removing the word "male" (in accordance with the source) would also be fine, if less specific than my edit. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem – these things are complicated and I'm certainly no expert. Ideally I think we should find another source altogether, which is more authoritative than a newspaper article and which focuses specifically on the point of male/female ratios in the House of Lords rather than broader inheritance issues (and I'd certainly be wary of relying on another WP article). My understanding is that the preceding "male" is often implicit when the term "primogeniture" is used; if that's right, whether we use it or not is probably a moot point, but as you say it would at least be more faithful to the source we do have. N-HH talk/edits 19:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A better source would indeed be good - among those given in the mentioned WP article, this peers' debate states that in some (implicitly, in most) cases, daughters can never inherit,  implying agnatic succesion (but unfortunately not naming it explicitly either). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Legally primogeniture means to the eldest child but people invariably use it (through laziness or custom) as though they have said male preference primogeniture. I'm not sure I would regard the NYT as a sufficiently expert source on peerage matters for sourcing. As to the latter point I'm not sure what you are after. The vast majority of all British peerages are heirs male of the body lawfully begotten (male only). A small number of ancient baronies by writ are heirs general (male preference) a small number of Scottish titles are heirs of talzie (property) or heirs/heirs male whatsoever which allows heirs/heirs male not of the body of the original grantee. There are a minuscule number of mad as a box of frogs remainders like Marlborough Garlicplanting (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm after a source for just this claim that "The vast majority of all British peerages are heirs male of the body lawfully begotten (male only)", to make the corresponding lead sentence more specific, and to replace the NYT source. Do you have one? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

text:  With the quickest google search  p194 Garlicplanting (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that looks good. I had searched specifically for "agnatic", which is not used there. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not surprised; agnatic is not a commonly used term in British peerage successions perhaps because it lacks nuance to deal with special remainders. Garlicplanting (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps; but according to the source the vast majority is agnatic primogeniture with no special remainder... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Either way I think we are better to use plain English terms where possible - heir male is I suggest an instantly more understandable term to an average reader than agnatic primogeniture. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

text: BTW, the claim of 2 hereditary peeresses in the Lords seems to be wrong as well: Our article lists the Countess of Mar as the only one; there were originally 4 elected hereditary peeresses, but 3 died from 2000-2008 and were replaced by men. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Agnatic" succession and male to female ratio 

message: I appreciate the consistency point, but the addition of "The" in front every "Lord/Baroness .." reads very oddly and over-formally. It's not how you normally see these people described or titled. And if anything, we were more or less consistent in not using it before that edit – removing it from Hill rather than adding it to all the others seems the more obvious option on those grounds alone. N-HH talk/edits 17:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The" 

message: In the section "20th century", the following appeared: "Asquith then proposed that the powers of the House of Lords be severely curtailed." Prior to that sentence there was no identification whatsoever of "Asquith" or his role. I have changed the page to read "Prime Minister H. H. Asquith then proposed..." with appropriate link to the H. H. Asquith page. Akld guy (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  20th century - "Asquith" was unidentified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on House of Lords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091001042614/http://www.chiefrabbi.org:80/ReadContent1849.aspx to http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadContent1849.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090126184819/http://www.parliament.uk:80/about/how/principal/interviews/lordspeaker.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/principal/interviews/lordspeaker.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I Checked them, first 2 are fine, 3rd does not work. Jtrrs0 (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I want to add the above statement to the article. I tweeted this graph yesterday  - would it count as "original research" if I sourced the data from Wikipedia? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia can't be used as a source for our own articles under our policy on reliable sources, so you'd need to find an independent source for the information that we can reference. - Chrism would like to hear from you 12:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I've found a source for this (thanks to Google Books). I'll find somewhere to note it in the article. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The House of Lords is the only Upper House bigger than its respective Lower House" 

message: Queen Victoria's second son, Alfred, was born in England and became the Duke of Edinburgh. Then when his uncle died in 1893, he inherited another dukedom: Saxe-Coburg Gotha; Thus, he became a regent of a (German State) foreign power in allegiance to the German Emperor, "intent on challenging England's supremacy as the foremost world power". In 1893, he is stated as the first person in recorded history to quit the Privy Council of his own volition, in 1893, he also relinquished his seat in the House of Lords.
Would the rules of membership of the (1893) House of Lords have continued to accept Prince Alfred as a member under such circumstances? Did he jump or was he pushed? Stephen2nd (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The gentleman's article is Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. That gives more information and cites http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-21342555 which gives still more information. It sounds like resigning was basically considered the natural thing to do in the cirucmstances, but there is no mention of any rule that would have required it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regent of a German state as a member? 

message: Please can we clarify how "  " (see "edit" for code) is worked out, and potentially provide a source? 81.132.7.205 (talk), 13:50, 5 August 2016‎ (UTC)
:It's a template: Template:HOLtotal. Farolif (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coding Issues 

message: The image representing the composition of the 805 seats in the House of Lords has colors which do not match the colored key provided below it. Specifically, the light blue color code of the Conservative Party does not match the dark blue dots representing this group in the image.
Could this be fixed? Thanks. KevinLiu (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Structure Image Color 

message: Bringing this issue up here first rather than hastily making a change under WP:BOLD;
The size of the House of Lords has varied greatly throughout its history. From about 50 members in the early 1700s,[1]...
Unless my sources are incorrect this statements is false. Membership of the House of Lords hovered around 220 members in the early 1700s; I do not know where the 50 members figure has come from. The earliest date in my source is 1714, which lists the composition as follows; Dukes 23, Marquises 2, Earls 74, Viscounts 11, Barons 67, Representing Scotland 16, Archbishops and Bishops 26. A total of 219. Going forward this had grown to 222 members in 1727, 224 in 1760, and by 1820 had jumped to 372. (Source: Cook, C. and Stevenson, J. (1980). British Historical Facts 1760–1830. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., p.50.)
The Electoral Reform Society is obviously a biased group with an agenda against the House of Lords, and maybe doesn't put out the most reliable academic works. If there are no objections, I will change this text and associated text and the associated source shortly. ToastButterToast (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "my sources" support the 1714 membership composition you state? The source "British Historical Facts 1760–1830" by its very title refers only to the second half of the 1700s and the early 1800s, which does not contradict the "early 1700s" number that was sourced by the Electoral Reform Society article. It's quite conceivable that the number of peers quadrupled between 1700 to 1760 (or even between 1700 and 1714, with the Acts of Union inbetween). 141.100.201.16 (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early 1700s composition 

message: https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/constitution/house-lords-reform/news/95433/jeremy-corbyn-next-labour-government-will-abolish
This should probably be added by someone with more knowledge of the topic than I have. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed abolition 

message: Many British are atheists. Their number is significant. They have supposedly equal rights, but that name is a disproof, also the Union Jack (UK National Flag), lots of heraldry and regional flags with Christian depictions. Is our tradition to oppress or to respect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4119:b900:c5cf:dc4b:2fc1:82c6 (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is our tradition to respect our nation's history. 31.54.146.71 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Controversy'': the Lords Spiritual 

message: Description under thrones picture says "Note that the Sovereign's throne (on left) is raised slightly higher than the consort's.". I'm not familiar how wikipedia works so I apoligize if what I'm about to say is not propper here. My suggestion is to look on how consort cussion is actualy much bigger, so big that consort will in fact seat higher.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.33.89 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thrones 

message: In this sentence, "While the House of Commons has a defined number of seats membership [sic], the number of members in the House of Lords is not fixed." Shouldn't that be either seats or membership? Please clarify. Thanks. Autodidact1 (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "seats membership [''sic'']"? 

message: The House of Lords has a long tradition of slavery. Should this be under a controversies section?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/14/as-statues-of-slave-traders-are-torn-down-their-heirs-sit-untouched-in-the-lords  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.234.230 (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to slavery? 

message: In the box labelled 'Structure', the seating for these Lords is shown in bright magenta. However, in the key to the plan, the colour for them is shown as a very bluish purple, totally unlike the magenta on the plan itself. I am well aware that blocks of colour appear different to dots of the same shade, but this is far more different than any other of the dot / block comparisons. I have looked at the 'code', and so far as I am concerned it might as well be in Navajo. Could someone more technical please have a look at this? Other comments on the shade difference would be welcome too. Sarandone2 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW the reason I have been looking at this article and the article on the Palace of Westminster is that I am trying to find out where a peer newly inheriting his title in 1841 would take his seat. The Palace burned in 1834, the new Lords was opened in 1847. But where the hell were they in betweeen? I might be missing something here, but I can't see a mention of this.  Sarandone2 (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems like it was changed to that diagram in January. I've reverted it to the old one, as that was in line with the key. As for your second question, I believe that the House of Lords was in the Painted Chamber temporarily, but I'm no expert. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. Sarandone2 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lords Spiritual on the plan 

message: :There have been no Roman Catholic clergy appointed, though it was rumoured that Cardinal Basil Hume and his successor Cormac Murphy O'Connor were offered peerages by James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair respectively, but declined.
We certainly heard the rumours at the time. Is there any evidence? Francis Hannaway (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Lords Spiritual 

message: The number given is significantly lower than the actual number. 62.254.11.238 (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 15:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

text: No it’s correct .see Here at parliament.uk  AlexBobCharles (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of members 

message: I've created an article prayer motion for a variety of types of motion that can be introduced by members of the House of Lords; however, I don't know enough about parliamentary procedure to be able to weave a mention of it into this article. Can anyone help? — The Anome (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prayer motions 

message: This is a reminder that as of 1999 membership of the House of Lords cannot be inherited.
90 hereditary peers who sit in the House of Lords are elected by internal by-elections under section 2 of the 1999 Act. Although they inherit their peerage, they do not inherit their seat in the House of Lords. 
In regards to the other two hereditary peers: The Earl Marshal is "excepted as holder of the office of Earl Marshal", and the Lord Great Chamberlain is "excepted ... as performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain." They two do not inherit membership in the House of Lords. 
 Critical Hippo (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership of the House of Lords cannot be inherited 

message: I read the membership section twice, and I still feel like I don't understand how a person becomes a member. Is there anyone with expertise in this subject? To simplify the language. Make this article more helpful to the layman like myself. Cheers  Eatthecrow (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  membership in the House of Lords