Talk:Peerages in the United Kingdom

message: Why is this for the United Kingdom only? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's complete nonsense.  In the first place, the term was coined in French (as pairie), and the French peerage has, I think, pride of first usage.  I believe there may have been similar concepts to the House of Lords in some other countries, although I'm not sure if "Peerage" was the term used.  In terms of rules in Asian countries created in the 19th or 20th centuries, there is absolutely no reason to say it's a bad translation.  These peerages were modeled directly on the British model.  I really do think this page should be moved to British Peerage, with Peerage covering a more international perspective. john k 13:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's tricky while I understand why you think this should be moved to British Peerage I'm also more than willing to accept that the main English language usage of the term peerage is a reference to the British Peerage. Just as wiki would leave Tony Blair or Bill Clinton as the main aricle for those names even if some fictitious micro-nation elected someone of the same name as their leader. So you could, as wiki does elsewhere, accept that this is the right place as the 'main' meaning. ( As an aside the French Peerage was an odd entity in that you could hold a title but not be a peer. Few nobles were peers - dukes being the exception and even here not always.) Alci12 14:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The vast, vast majority of references to "the Peerage" or "peerage", both on Wikipedia and in normal usage, are to the subject of this article. Similarly House of Lords is not at "British House of Lords" just because there was a less important, much less well known and obsolete Irish House of Lords. Proteus (Talk) 12:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  worldwide view 

message: Will someone please Disambiguate the term from the American usage,
whereby one is tried by one's peers-meaning equals. 
Thanks. Yours truly, -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ludvikus
:We also say the same thing in the UK. I think you got it from us. Anyway, the US doesn't refer to this as "peerage", does it? So no disambiguation is needed. Marnanel 12:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't need to be disambig'd. One is not tried by the Peerage - one is tried by one's peers. The word peer has, like many words in the English language, multiple meanings. It can mean, variously, to look intently or search for; to appear; or someone or something of equal worth, quality or standing etc. It is within the context of the last meaning that the meaning for peers, as in the peerage, is taken: those in a system of a stratus of social ranks equal to each other. There is no difference in usage between English and Americans' usage of the language. --Mal 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peers as Equals in American Usage - Requires [[Disambiguation]] 

message: I've reverted the link to the Peerage of the Commonwealth of Australia because there was no such thing; for instance, the letters patent creating the Birdwood Barony, as visible in the London Gazette, declare it to be a "Barony of the United Kingdom". Further discussion at that talk page on Australian titles. Choess 03:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: This article states that succession in hereditary peerages created by latters patent is usually agnatic, ie passing from elder to younger brother, even when children exist.  It was my understanding that as with the monarchy, the title descended from the holder to his/her children.  Can anyone confirm, or better yet, give a cite?  Rojomoke (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agnatic 

message: A peerage (as a collective term) refers to a group of nobles who have a legislative right as a result of that nobility. At the moment the article deals entirely with the British peerage. As noted above back in 2006, many other nations had similar systems, including
*the French chambre des pairs
*the Japanese House of Peers
*the Hungarian House of Magnates
*the Prussian and Austrian Herrenhausen
*the Swedish House of Nobility
*the Finnish House of Nobility
and so on. To limit the article to the British peerage is totally unjustified, especially as it wasn't even the first one (the French peerage was the original). I think the majority of this article should be moved to British peerage and an overview of peerages in different countries should be at this article. Many later Houses of Peers (e.g. the Prussian and Japanese) were directly based on the British model, so there is plenty of scope for a general article on how the concept spread through history.
Opera hat (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British focus 

message: I'm interested in the process whereby a peerage is formally created. This stems from my interest in John Forrest.  He's often described, even in very reputable references, as "Lord Forrest" (1st Baron Forrest of Bunbury), but as far as I can ascertain that's not correct.  The decision to create the barony was made; this was communicated to the Australian Governor-General, who communicated it to Forrest.  Forrest took this to mean that he was now a peer, and immediately started signing "Forrest".  However, the Letters Patent had not been drawn up; and he died a short time later, still technically a commoner.  I suppose we could say that the decision to elevate him was made in principle, and under normal circumstances that would have led automatically to all the technical processes involved in the creation of the barony.  So we shouldn't be too critical of Forrest for jumping the gun.  Plus, it was announced in the Australian press, which in my understanding normally means the person is entitled to assume the title immediately.  That's certainly true for knighthoods; they're publicly announced in an Honours List months (in some cases years) before the formal investiture, but from the day of the publication they can use "Sir".  But apparently in Forrest's case he should have waited for all the red tape to be formalised.  So, what is that red tape - is there anything other than the writing and signing of the Letters Patent, for example - and where can I find precise details of it?  --  JackofOz (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A peerage is created when the Letters Patent pass the Great Seal and not before. Mere publication of the intent to create a peerage does not itself create a peerage, and Forrest was being premature. Another example is George Cave, 1st Viscount Cave: his resignation as Lord Chancellor and elevation to an earldom was announced on 29 March 1928, but as he died the same day he never received the higher title. (His widow was created a Countess suo jure, though.) I think there are other examples of intended recipients dying after the Letters Patent were drawn up but before the Great Seal could be affixed. 90.212.85.126 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was me: forgot to log in :| Opera hat (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Process of creating peerages

message: Being from continental Europe, where members of the nobility are merely numbered by name (i.e. Lothar II., as there had already been a Lothar before him), I am not quite sure I've grasped the way in which peerages are numbered. While all of these processes must be quite evident for people acquainted with the British system of peerage, they might be rather confusing for readers only familiar with continental customs. As far as I've understood, the successor to the 1st Earl X will be the 2nd Earl X and so forth, etc. If the title of peerage in question becomes extinct due to the lack of a legitimate heir, and is subsequently awarded to a new holder, would this be counted as a "2nd creation"? And would the numbering then again start at one? As numbers are fairly closely associated with the titles in British peerage, I think it would be helpful if somebody conversant in nobility issues could perhaps add a short paragraph on the matter. Trigaranus (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining Numbering System 

message: What is the difference between dormant and abeyant titles ?
Siyac 21:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference, so far as I am aware, is that a dormant title is one for which no claimant currently exists (but one may in the future), or for which one probably exists but the identity of the claimant is unknown. An abeyant title is one for which multiple people have equally valid claims. In both cases, it depends upon the title's "remainder," essentially the rules by which the title can be inherited. Right now, I can't think of a situation where a title can go dormant without completely reverting to the Crown, but I'm sure there are some. The classic case of an abeyant title is one which can be passed on to individual sons, but ALL the daughters--that is, if there is no eldest son to inherit the title, it legally goes to all of the peer's daughters.  A title cannot be shared among multiple people though, so the title is held in abeyance until (a)  all daughters but one disclaim their right to it, (b) all daughters but one die, or (c) the Sovereign (or Parliament) ends the abeyance by favoring one daughter. 99.37.210.43 (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: In the UK, 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) 09:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably too strong to say that there's a policy to let the titles die out, but public opinion being what it is (see Lords reform), creating new hereditary peers just doesn't look good for the government, that's all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.210.43 (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more hereditary UK peerages 

message: I don't dispute the principle that HM cannot herself be a peer of right. But since she's married to a peer, is she not also the Dcuhess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, and Baroness Greenwich in her husband's right? I've never seen those included in her list of titles, but it seems like maybe they ought to be. 152.133.13.1 (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannot hold a peerage from herself

message: We say "There is currently no recognised way for a life peer to leave the upper House permanently and voluntarily."
But This article discusses some recent resignations from the Lords related to maintaining a "non-dom" tax status, i.e. "non-domiciled for tax purposes".  I am not enough of an expert to consider fixing what we have there myself, so I merely note it here for the experts to ponder.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request 

message: Wondering if Lord and Lady's count as peers - article seems to imply it, but they aren't listed in the table Snellios (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit complicated, but it's dealt with in the Styles and Titles section of the article and in the "main article" links.  The main distinction is that the wife of a peer (say, Lord Bloggs)  is known as Lady Bloggs, but that doesn't make her a peer.  The husband of a female peer (say, Lady Mudd) is not, however, known as Lord Mudd - doesn't make sense, does it? --GuillaumeTell 18:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  are Lords/Lady's peers? 

message: Wil spouse of a peer be considered a peer during her marriage since UK peerage system only enobled individuals rather than family ?
::Siyac (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See Courtesy_titles_in_the_United_Kingdom#The_wives_of_peers perhaps we need to add this (in whole or part) to the main peerage article. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  spouse 

message: Now that most of the hereditary peers have been swept from the House of Lords it cannot be said that the creation of a hereditary peerage is in any way manipulating the composiiton of Parliament. What's the chance that now, governments can start to create hereditary peerages?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.230.150 (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hereditary Peers

message: We appear to know how much Lloyd George charged for a peerage: see Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 - but what of the many men who became Barons or higher in the nineteenth century after making a fortune in business or property? Has anyone published how much they paid, or to whom? NRPanikker (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cost of a Peerage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peerages in the United Kingdom. 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/20081006201806/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldstords/147/14703.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldstords/147/14703.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) 22:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Are the Seigneurs of Sark Peers in the United Kingdom or not? Some of the Seigneurs of Sark are shown as peers on their talk page, some are shown as politicians, and some are shown without either. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not. Opera hat (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I think, and I will remove "|peerage-work-group=yes|peerage-priority=low" from seigneurs, but is "|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=low"? At least in Jersey and Sark they appear to have real political power, even today. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seigneurs of Sark 

message: As of the date/time I'm typing this the Article contained the clause "Baronets, while holders of hereditary titles, are not peers since baronetcies have never conferred noble status,". Since "peer" is a synonym for "noble", and "holder of a baronetcy" is a synonym for "baronet", that amounts to saying "Baronets (i.e. holders of baronetcies) are not peers (i.e. nobles) because a baronetcy (i.e. the holding of a baronet) does not make the holder a noble (i.e. peer)". It's circular, self-referential, and tautological. One might just as well say "A Duke is a peer because a Dukedom does confer noble status". This is the KIND of writing that shows why Wikipedia should have every article scrutinize not only by people with expert knowledge, but also by people with NO knowledge of the article's subject-matter but whose fortes are proofreading, grammar, logic, verbal ambiguity, information science, and consistency. And Wikipedia should stop asking for donations until such vetting is routine.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Tautology

message: Hi, does anybody knows, why the Infobox Template:Peerage is not displayed in the mobile version of the article?? Thx! Regards --W like wiki good to know 16:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: →For the discussion on this topic, please go to Module talk:Sidebar#How to override "class=nomobile" to display sidebar in mobile view?. Regards, --W like wiki good to know 14:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

text: See also template's talk page. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Peerage|Peerage Infobox]] is not displayed in mobile version 

message: Hi, does anybody knows, why the Infobox Template:Peerage is not expanded although it is written !? --W like wiki good to know 14:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: →For the discussion on this topic, please go to Module talk:Sidebar#Paramter "state=expanded". Regards, --W like wiki good to know 14:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

text: See also template's talk page. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Peerage|Peerage Infobox]] is not expanded