Talk:Peerage of England

message: Is this list complete? Where (for instance) is the Earl of Arundel ? Doops 18:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Marquess of Granby is also missing 121.73.7.84 (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the same reason; it has always been subsidiary to the dukedom of Rutland.  (Even on my most liberal days I would not list titles that were created as subsidiary.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing titles? 

message: This article has been mentioned in the media as the location of a hoax.  I've written what I think the situation is in the talk there, but a further check by someone who knows something about the subject would be appreciated. Thanks, BanyanTree 16:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Duke of Cleveland]] 

message: Please, somebody add that.  What other important ducal titles are held by the Sovereign?  IP Address 09:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sovereign doesn't hold any such titles in law they 'exist' only as traditional forms of address as in the first example the channel Islands.Alci12 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: At the horrible risk of making more work, I note we're missing a good number of abeyant titles like Botetourt (1305) I think Montagu and Morthermer also apply. [I don't mean titles that have been abeyant since 1300 but those that could reasonable be terminated should probably be here.Alci12 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alci, I think such titles are listed in List of baronies.  The Peerage of X articles are meant to list currently existing peers, no? john k 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, though I can understand that for the 700 yr old abeyances it feels a bit odd for titles in abeyance for a few years and just waiting likely termination as we will keep switching them between pages. Looking at that page there appear to be a good number of errors...well or else we're back to the how do you spell some baronies argument again. I'll make a post on the talk page there as ppl may have a reason for amending it as they have.Alci12 11:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: More precisely, a monarch cannot hold any titles created by the same crown (cannot be her own vassal). —Tamfang (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dukes of Normandy and of Lancaster 

message: Peerage is a countable noun and refers to individual noble titles, such as dukedoms. The uncountable collective term for all peerages is nobility. Having a peerage makes one a member of the nobility. Members of the nobility have peerages. The article should be about the English nobility.
* You are right, peerage is a countable noun. That means, in this context, that one could refer to three peerages: the peerages of England, Scotland, and Japan, say: each of which is the body of peers of that country. That is what the article is about. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: should the article maybe be edited to say that a little? I had to read quite a bit before I even had the smallest idea what a peerage even was Spencer707201 (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: title of article

message: Is that list comprehensive? What about Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster? Or is he not of the English peerage?Jatrius 21:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dukes

message: Where is the duke of Rutland ?
That dukedom is in the peerage of England and is not extinct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.236.114 (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Rutland 

message: I added Baron Badlesmere (1309) from finding him by the Random article feature. However, I am puzzled by the formatting of the Barons table, especially right after Baron Badlesmere. Should every entry have a horizontal line following it in the table?  If so, there is a Baroness without a preceding horizontal line.  Also, and maybe this is a known bug, the preview does not look like the saved article table. Perhaps more experienced editors can figure out the syntax and fix the problems. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table formatting 

message: This dukedom has just been restored.
The new Dukedom of Cambridge is a peer of the United Kingdom (not of England)Trajanis (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and what about York and Westminster why are they not included or is the list just out of date. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The peerage of England has had no new creations since the kingdom of England was merged into the kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. —Tamfang (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cambridge

message: I've never seen an explanation, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, to reconcile these two facts:
* Before the Tudors, female succession to English earldoms was apparently common.
* In modern times, the only English peerages that can pass to daughters (other than by special remainder) are baronies by writ.  Even the oldest surviving higher peerages are now male-only.
Was there a legislative change? —Tamfang (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  female succession in England 

message: Do the Earldoms in England before 1066 form part of the Peerage of England or not? Greenshed (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No. —Tamfang (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earldoms in England before 1066