Talk:List of members of the House of Lords

message: Is it necessary or informative to include "The" at the start of each and every entry? As it's repeated, does it not become superfluous? While it may be a more precise form of their title, I would think a table like this should be used to display unique information. While it doesn't use that much space, it does add a little. To take how the House of Lords itself lists them, it titles each page as the name of the peer without the article, Lord Aberdare, and then noting within for full title, The Lord Aberdare: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-aberdare/3898 William Quill (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated Definite Article

message: Comparing it to House_of_Lords#Current_composition, there are a number of mistakes; UKIP members, for instance. Could someone who knows more about this than I do please correct this? —Nightstallion (?) 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Party affiliations

message: I think I'm going to move Bishops into a seperate part of the list, since membership of the Lords is in that case an ex officio office - and basically to make it easier to update them.  We seem to be missing York, for example, who I'm not sure if he's hazed or whatever yet.  Morwen - Talk 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's done.  I've also done a disambiguation and squashed what I think were all the links to titles rather than actual peers.  Could do with some more notes :-
*need to note Lords of Appeal who remained in the House but aren't active Law Lords anymore, etc
*need to note elected hereditaries who won by-elections.
*could do with explicitly noting LPA 1958 peers, so that can difference between omission and a life peer.  Morwen - Talk 22:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bishops

message: gah, it looks like we may have a bunch of missing lords.  Comparing the list here to  we are missing a lot of peers.  The first bunch are :
*Ballyedmond
*Bhattacharyya
*Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
*Broers
*Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
*Cameron of Dillington
*Carswell
*Carter of Coles
*Chapman
*D'Souza
*De Mauley
*Dearing
*Drayson
*Dykes
*Falkner of Margravine
*Garden
*George
*Giddens
*Gould of Brockwood
*Griffiths of Burry Port
*Hale of Richmond
*Hart of Chilton
*Hastings of Scarisbrick
*Haworth
*Henig
*Howard of Rising
Presumably mostly recent life peers.  This is going to take quite a bit of work to bring up to date.  Morwen - Talk 20:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at this a bit more, yeah, the cutoff point seems to be the peers created after spring 2004, which is basically when the list was made originally.  So Triesman (January 2004) is here, but Kalms (June 2004) isn't.  Morwen - Talk 21:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing lords

message: Why isn't he included in the article?84.134.92.179 (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lord Johnston acquired his title through being a Senator of the College of Justice and not through a peerage. As he wasn't a peer he was not eligible for membership of the House of Lords. Road Wizard (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alan Johnston, Lord Johnston 

message: What about him?84.134.100.168 (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Baron Tweedsmuir was a hereditary peer. There are several hundred hereditary peers, but only 92 are allowed to sit in the House of Lords at any one time (due to the changes brought about by the House of Lords Act 1999). As he wasn't one of the 92 hereditary members elected to sit in the Lords he is not recorded in this article. See List of hereditary peers elected to sit in the House of Lords under the House of Lords Act 1999. Road Wizard (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Buchan, 3rd Baron Tweedsmuir 

message: Why was he deleted from the "leave of absence"- list ?84.134.89.247 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he is no longer on a leave of absence. See List of Peers Granted Leave of Absence and House of Lords: alphabetical list of Members. His entry in the article has been moved to the T-Z section. Road Wizard (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Tombs 

message: What's the reason Royal members are not included on this list?
The House of Lords Act 1999 refers to:
:members of the Royal Family with the right to sit and vote in the House (the Prince of Wales  2 , the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of York, the Duke of :Gloucester, the Duke of Kent and the Earl of Wessex);  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.38.184 (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Act is a little confusing (for those of us not used to reading Acts of Law, anyway!) The "Exclusion" that applies to Members of the Royal Family is Exclusion from the House of Lords, not exclusion from being excluded! The people listed in that section were actually all offered life peerages, but none of the royals accepted. Therefore they are not members of the House. A number of "first holders" did accept life peerages, the only remaining one being the Earl of Snowdon (a sort-of royal). Viscount Cranbourne, as the only holder of a writ of acceleration at the time, also accepted a life peerage. JRawle (Talk) 00:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: JRawle is correct. See the House of Lords Act 1999 article for a full explanation and supporting references. Road Wizard (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had thought Cranborne was given a life peerage as a former cabinet minister rather than due to the writ of acceleration. john k (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Members 

message: Is this list complete?84.134.117.197 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not compare it to the official list here?  JRawle (Talk) 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: That is nonsense! I've deleted it. It was added by vandal 76.203.233.103 in this edit in May:  Lord Richard is correctly listed in the table already. JRawle (Talk) 15:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete?

message: I can't find him in the list. Was he excluded in 1999?84.134.115.70 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If a hereditary peer like Thomas John Ashton, 3rd Baron Ashton of Hyde is not recorded in the List of hereditary peers elected to sit in the House of Lords under the House of Lords Act 1999 then they will have lost their membership at that time. Road Wizard (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas John Ashton, 3rd Baron Ashton of Hyde

message: Cundy has died.Max Mux (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Cundy 

message: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/may/14/cash-for-amendments-peers
Max Mux (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  suspended? 

message: What does this mean? john k (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since 1958  the Standing Order of the House of Lords requires its members to attend any of its meetings, however those prevented for any reason may request a leave of absence, granted by the Lord Speaker for a certain period or the remainder of a parliament. Generally the causes are disease or age-related infirmity. (see also  and ) ~~ Phoe   talk  ~~  15:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So did the hundreds of hereditary peers with little to no no interest in the business of the House of Lords before 1999 all show up unless they were suffering from disease or age-related infirmity? john k (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When I said that health and age were the general causes, this of course meant not that these were the only reasons (for example ) - but do you want me to go through all hansards since then to examine all? I hope not :-) Instead I have found, I believe, the original procedure , what should expand my previous explantation a little bit more. Note that at several times amendments were implemented. By the way, if I remember right, at one time even sanctions against absentees (without granted leave) were considered. ~~ Phoe   talk  ~~  22:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither this article nor House of Lords explains the term, although both use it.  It seems to me that some explanation of the nature of a "leave of absence" from the House of Lords ought to be included in both articles.  Also - is it accurate to say that, in spite of this rule, there are no actual sanctions against absentees? john k (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be sensible to add an explantation to both articles and will do so in the next days. Regarding actual sanctions, I'm not aware of any. May I finally add that you John has always striked me as very familiar with peerage relates details and that I wonder whether your original question was perhaps only thought as reminder to explain the term ? ~~ Phoe   talk  ~~  22:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know a fair bit about the peerage, but largely historically, and not so much recent history.  I was genuinely unclear on what a leave of absence was, especially as my understanding was that attendance in the House of Lords was always quite poor.  So, no, it wasn't just a rhetorical device.  I didn't know what a leave of absence from the House of Lords was and I was genuinely curious about it.  john k (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  leave of absence? 

message: I would like to point out that due to a bad hyperlink, the article suggests that the current Lord Bishop of Birmingham is a man who has been dead for 133 years. I know that the correct page is linked at the top of that page, but at first glance it can be very confusing. I would change it myself, but a lack of technical knowledge prevents me from doing so.--82.16.110.13 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Fixed. Kittybrewster  ☎ 13:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: David Urquhart

message: Just checking. Is he senior to London? --Kittybrewster  ☎ 13:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the order is Canterbury, York, London, Durham, Winchester, and then the others by seniority. Proteus (Talk) 13:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lord Bishop of Durham

message: One thing i've noticed here is that some parties, that according to the main House of Lords article sit in, are missing from this list. For example last time I checked Baron Bannside was leader of the Democratic Unionist Party and The Ulster Unionists according to the main article have 4 representitives in the house so is this an error or is there some reason why members of some political parties don't have their party in this list? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parties 

message: An IP editor wants to add images to this page for every single member for whom an image is available. This list is already large and loads somewhat slowly on older machines (c. 2005). Adding hundreds of images makes this page load so slowly that it effectively restricts me, and people like me, from viewing it. Editing becomes so slow that I would never be able to edit here again. As the one who tends to update the leaves of absence and one who helps with deaths and new members, such a result would not only be bad for editors on old machines, but also for the article. The only response to this in the edit summaries has been that IP disagrees. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. That IP's experience isn't slowed down? Does IP think I am lying? I have added pictures to other lists around the project, and more to the point have never given IP a reason to do other than assume good faith. In any event, I cannot be the only person using a configuration on which hundreds upon hundreds of images drastically slows page load.
I have suggested the alternative of dividing the "Lords Temporal" section into four or five sub-articles with no response. I personally don't think the value of the images is enough to justify dividing the article, but it is a better alternative than having several hundred images. -Rrius (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: If the diocese is vacant, shouldn't it be removed from the list and the next most senior bishop after Worcester added to the bottom? john k (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop of Manchester 

message: The Lord Luke and The Lord Howe of Aberavon have been added to the list of recently deceased peers. Both of them had retired from the House of Lords under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. To me it would seem logical to have only those peers who were members of the House at the time of their death in the list of deceased. If retired peers are added in the list, there is some inconsistency as former Lords Spiritual and excluded hereditary peers, who have died, aren't listed. --Editor FIN (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Recently deceased' list 

message: Should we not also add names in some if not all cases? Some of these members deliberately do not use their titles, and there are some whose titles have not become their common name regardless (e.g. Peter Mandelson). Shouldn't this list make an effort not to obscure these members' identities? DBD 20:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this page can remain as it is now, because all peers are known solely by their titles in the House of Lords and this is a list of members of the House. I think that it's maybe not very hard to identify peers, because most life peers have their surname as a part of their title and a reader can also check the articles of peers. --Editor FIN (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not using titles 

message: Some peers have a mention in their note section that they were suspended from the House earlier. I think that these mentions could be removed from the list, because those peers have suffered their punishments and aren't suspended anymore. What do others think? --Editor FIN (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If the details are not from the cited sources (ie - House of Lords official site), then there's no reason to include them here. Farolif (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formerly suspended peers 

message: This article uses the colour template Crossbencher/meta/color described as grey for peers sitting on the Crossbenches. List of longest-serving current Members of the House of Lords and List of elected hereditary peers under the House of Lords Act 1999 use the slightly differently named template Crossbench/meta/color with the lighter shade . Personally, I prefer the latter (it just seems fitting that non-partisan people should have less strong colours than party members). I think it makes sense if there's just one colour for the same group across different articles, but didn't want to impose my own preference unilaterally 2A02:8010:6087:0:381A:988F:6000:3FB7 (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has objected, so I have now gone ahead with this change 2A02:8010:6087:0:381A:988F:6000:3FB7 (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossbench colour 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Members of the House of Lords. 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/20130202190052/http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/deceased-lords/ to http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/deceased-lords/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/non-attending-lords/
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) 07:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Following the death of The Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore and other retirements, there should be 51 non-affiliated peers and 180 crossbench peers. However, I am unable to change the bar chart.
Sdrqaz (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind: I have found the template and have edited accordingly. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current composition 

message: I think all entries on the list article should state whether they are former MPs. User:Editor FIN reverted my edit which listed this for deceased members. I’ve undone the reversion, as I see no reason it can’t be mentioned. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Support this. I always wondered why it wasn't done before now? No other place exists on Wiki to see what former MPs are currently members of the Lords. The "notes" column isn't used enough in my opinion and it doesn't add to the length of the article in any way, just fleshes it out a bit more. --Jkaharper (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Former MP note should, of course, be included for current members, as Jkaharper said. My view is that for consistency, roles and offices should be included for former members (deceased, resigned etc.) in a similar way than for current members or to leave also former MP note out. Why to include former MP note for former members but leave other significant roles and offices out? --Editor FIN (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: TrottieTrue, have you seen my comment and question? --Editor FIN (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Ah okay, I better understand what the objection was about now. Just to be clear, I support adding "former MP" for both current and former members of the HoL as long as they're still alive. The word "former", IMO (and I say "IMO" because this is a contentious point), should only be used to refer to living individuals. Whenever a biography of a living person becomes a deceased one on Wiki, we remove any mention of the word "former" from the lede for a very good reason – it's a loaded word, and with it some people assume it to mean "still living but now doing something else" essentially. For that reason, it should be worded differently against deceased members OR just not mentioned at all. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

text: "In the House of Commons" definitely isn't needed. "MP" only stands for one thing in the UK. "Previously an MP" or something like "MP; 1970–1997" is fine. As for your second question, isn't it stated on the page? It's 12 months after their death before we clear them off? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't stated explicitly, but the "Recently deceased" is currently showing the deaths since March 2020, so I think it probably is only those for the last year. In which case I'm not going to make too much of a fuss about it, though when any Lord is "moved" from elsewhere on the page to the RD table, the Notes could surely just be copied with them. It now looks as though there is no 'Notes' column at all for the Recently deceased. Well, I suppose my main reason for adding 'former MP' will be resolved one way or another, which is that I've been keeping track of the oldest living former MPs, paying particular attention to those over 90. User:Andrew Gray has done some good work on this (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom). Basically, I think the 'Notes' field should be copied over to the RD table when anyone in the list dies. Therefore anyone who currently has 'former MP' in their Notes would have it if they go into 'Recently deceased'. I hope that's all clear!--TrottieTrue (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I now remember that it was the "Ceased to be members" section which you reverted my edit on, not the "Recently deceased" section. So I think Jkaharper was agreeing with me. Good to see that "former MP" is now back in the "Notes" there..--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former MPs 

message: Why is Evgeny Lebedev not mentioned in this list? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He is actually in the list (as Lord Lebedev). --Editor FIN (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is [[Evgeny Lebedev]] not listed here?

message: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-60650077  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.77.239 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julian Henderson 

message: Wouldn't it be more sensible to list the deceased hereditary peers with an ordinal number? There can be only one title holder of a specific title at any given moment so it's not a problem to list some hereditary peers who resigned under the proper form of address such as The Earl of X or The Lord X but it's very much possible for the succeeding titleholder of a hereditary peerage to be elected to the house so we'd find ourselves in a position where there's a Duke of X among the current members while his deceased predecessor, also a Duke of X, is listed among the deceased members for a whole year. I think we could preempt any such situation now. --Killuminator (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a sensible suggestion. I would follow the form of List of hereditary peers elected under the House of Lords Act 1999. SamWilson989 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds too much like a solution to a 'problem' which not only doesn't exist at this time, but will only ever happen in rare instances – especially given the process for electing hereditary peers. Is there a specific noble who you think is likely to ascend to the Lords in this situation? Farolif (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  One noble that is 100% certain to end up in this situation eventually, all other things remaining the same, would be the Duke of Norfolk. That title has been bundled with the title of Earl Marshal for a long time and the latter lands the titleholder an automatic seat in the House of Lords, and as the two titles are a package deal this would be one title that's guaranteed to eventually create a scenario I mentioned. We'd have a dead Duke of Norfolk for a year in one section and a living one listed somewhere else. Another highly probable but not 100% guaranteed scenario are the elected Labour Party peers. They have only two guaranteed seats for hereditary peers who affiliate with that party and there are very few nobles who have such a partisan affiliation to begin with. An article from The Guardian details recent issues of finding a noble who meets these criteria so the likelihood of both the title and parliamentary seat being inherited within a year is very high. But even ignoring the probability of these scenarios happening, you could make the case that it's technically incorrect to make a definitive use of THE with a title that currently belongs to a dead noble's successor. For example, we use The Lord Cobbold here for someone who died recently, his successor is technically The Lord Cobbold. The current one might never join the House of Lords, but it would be more accurate to use an ordinal number with this entry. --Killuminator (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deceased hereditary peers 

message: I went to the article to find out how many women sit in the House of Lords and did not see the answer. 184.147.56.25 (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally there is a Wikipedia article dedicated to this topic: Women in the House of Lords. I have updated it with your figures, @Jordan Grant. SamWilson989 (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender composition 

message: Suspended as well. 84.167.80.80 (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baroness Goudie 

message: [User:Farolif]] noticed that some peers returned to attend state opening but I did ot see any references for that so I asked him and did not receive an answer. As I'm interested  about that I'm askin g here. HulkNorris (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Returning from leave of absence