Talk:British Peerage

message: Hi, I noticed in the article the text "(One Marquesses - the Marquess Camden - bears a territorial title but does not use 'of'."
Does this mean that the current holder is a woman, or is the plural just a typo?  I'm American, so it's hard to know for sure.  Thanks!  Pakaran 18:30, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peerage title typo? 

message: I have seen pagest that assert that the bearer of the Marquessate of Douro is the Marquess Douro, and not the Marquess of Douro, though the same may not be necessarily correct: . -- Lord Emsworth 22:36, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
P.S. It is probably "of Douro," as that style is used by Britannica: . -- Lord Emsworth 22:37, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
It is "Marquess Douro". The current heir to the Dukedom uses "Marquess of Douro", however, presumably because he thinks it sounds better. Proteus 20:05 GMT 6th January 2004
Yes, Burke's gives "Marquess Douro"... of course, the official secondary title of the Dukes of Atholl is something like "Marquess of Tullibardin", but they've always used "Tullibardine", and so forth... john 20:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peerage title tradition 

message: "Thus, it is likely that the prestige of the hereditary peerage will be reduced, and therefore, some might call for its abolition."
I have to agree with the removal of this phrase by an anonymous user, and I doubt the NPOV of the preceding paragraph as well. I don't see any logical basis for either of this sentence's two assertions: firstly, the peerage has been largely disassociated with wealth for a long time, since political rather than economic success has been the main criterion for admission for more than a century; secondly, people have already called for its abolition, and have been largely ignored, and I see no relevance in pointing out that more people may call for its abolition in the future. Most political and social institutions have been criticised at some point by some group or other, and I don't see why the peerage should be singled out by it being implied that it is doomed to be abolished. Judging by examples in other countries, nobility seems to last longer than monarchy in most places, and I don't see the British monarchy being in any danger of abolition. Proteus 15:31, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: :The peerage is a system of titles of honour unique to Britain, and is one part of the British honours system. Peers were, historically, title holders entitled to be summoned to the House of Lords. The families of title-holders are not peers (though the wives of peers are traditionally known as peeresses). This is a fundamental distinction from the Continental system of titles, where families rather than individuals are ennobled, and where more than one person can hold the same title simultaneously.
Please reword this so the naive reader (such as myself) can get a grasp of the system. Currently, I feel this paragraph is written with a bit of an assumption that the reader already knows the topic at hand. Sincerely, Kingturtle 19:55, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening paragraph 

message: This article has several instances of Peerage with the P capitalized when it occurs in the middle of the sentence.  Is this proper?  There are also many instances with the P in lowercase.   Shouldn't it be consistent one way or the other? Bevo 15:27, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization consistency of the word "peerage" ? 

message: I think we should have Tony Benn, perhaps someone like Lord Bath, Byron, Lucan and to represent life peers, perhaps someone like Andrew Lloyd Weber or Waheed Alli? Mintguy (T) 15:47, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures for this article

message: many Princes, however, are granted peerates separately.
Is "peerates" a typo for "peerages", or a very obscure synonym? Marnanel 06:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo?

message: I was under the impression that though a Baronet was created to fill the ranks of nobility, it was a peerage title nonetheless? How is it not? Also, the honorific title "The Right Honorble" has appeared before as a salutation. Especially in British parliament, considering it being casually used or not.
:Baronet is not a peer. It is just under the lower boundary of peerage = barons. Baronet = little baron. 62.78.120.237 19:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Usage

message: If peerageis the system of nobility in the United Kingdom, then there should be no other articles on peerage, such as the Peerage of France... 
There needs to be some NPOV cleanup on every single article on aristocratic title in Wikipedia to be non-England centric! Most articles (list articles as well) seem to assume everything is English or part of the UK by default, with footnoting the rest of the world.
Just some thoughts. 132.205.45.148 21:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Peerage" is almost always used in the British context. The same applies, for example, to House of Lords; the article concerns the British House, even though there has been an Irish body of the same name. -- Emsworth 21:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: almost is the kicker. There should be a disambiguation page linked off the top. Still, though, the articles on titles need work since they are UK-centric, like Duke was/is, when they should not be. 132.205.45.110 18:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Michael Bush argues convincingly that the British peerage is only the upper segment of a broader British "aristocracy," the lower levels being the baronetcy and the gentry (paralleling the "minor nobilities" on the Continent). He's arguing that the British system is not really all that different, historically, from any other upper class in Europe, differing only in details -- but that those details enabled the survival of the British system where aristocracies on the Continent were swept away in all practical senses by revolutions of the commonality. Anyway, this would make "peerage" a British term and "aristocracy" the broader western term. How does that strike people? --Michael K. Smith 18:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It strikes me as confusing. "Aristocracy" had a precise, legal meaning in ancient Greece, but today is a general term for the uppermost, hereditary portion of any country's "upper class". Peerage is a much narrower term. Bush's description of the British peerage's survival as a legal institution through the 20th century because of its flexibility and fluidity is probably an accurate interpretation of its history (though debatable), but it misapprehends and denies the uniqueness of Britain's social class system. Although legally the "nobility" was synonymous with the peerage in the British Isles, in fact the former term has always been colloquially used to refer to those of the immediate family of peers who derived courtesy prefixes (e.g. Lord, Lady, Honourable, Dowager Viscountess, etc) from those kinships. The remoter, untitled descendents of peers who were in line of succession to a peerage, as well as their wives and daughters, were also gentry by dint of "gentle birth", unless they actually performed manual labor to support themselves. Gentry also included baronets, knights, and their wives, by virtue of possession of the prefixes attached to those ranks. But those who lived off the (usually agricultural) proceeds of their property were also considered gentry, even if they had no title nor were in line of succession to any. This last class formed by far the largest sector of the gentry, and because of it the "gentry" may absolutely not be considered the British version of the Continental lower nobility. While the latter shared most of the British gentry's lack of title, they retained possession of the legal status of "nobility" as much as did any duke, count or peer. Whereas any Briton could rise into the gentry by acquiring the means to live "gently", on the Continent one could only be noble by inheritance or grant from a sovereign. In some countries, such as France, Germany, Hungary and Venice, these untitled nobles nonetheless retained privileges at law that were either reserved in Britain for peers, or were not even possessed by members of the House of Lords, e.g. exemption from taxation or eligibility to vote for or be elected national ruler (e.g. Doge). The gentry is unique to the British Isles, and although it functioned and was treated as if it were the British lower nobility, it was far more porous than the noblesse of the rest of Europe, and was legally indistinguishable from the poorest peasant: Being a gentleman in Britain was a way of life, whereas being a noble on the Continent was a matter of birth.Lethiere 06:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: The US tv show "American Princess" announced that the winner will be granted a British noble title. Queen Elizabeth II is the only person in UK entitled to grant noble titles. Will Queen grant title or not ?
If granted a title, I don't think the winner can use her title since she is not British citizen. 
User:Siyac 13:42, 9 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Princess 

message: I have removed the following paragraph added by an anonymous user: 
"As the UK does not have a written constitution, Peerage titles are social constructs whose existance are dependent on citizens continued use of them. As the UK continues its transformation towards a meritocracy this tradition is currently dying out, with many 'peers' now referred to by their regular names in the national press and popular parlance. There is no law demanding that the titles must be used."
This passage is somewhat misleading. Firstly, the UK does have a constitution, partly written and partly unwritten; it is merely uncodified. Secondly, the passage implies that Peerages have no recognition in the law/ constitution of the UK, when such is clearly untrue. The uncodified constitution certainly recognises Peerage titles, as evidenced, for instance, by the right to sit in the Lords and by the Privilege of Peerage. Thirdly, it would be inaccurate to state that the UK is becoming a meritocracy. The government does include meritocratic elements, but it is not a meritocracy, nor is it becoming one. Fourthly, the use of quotation marks around the word peers seems to have certain POV implications. Fifthly, "regular names" is not an appropriate term: a peer's title is, in effect, his name. Sixthly, although many peers use so-called "regular names," most do not; the use of "Lord Such-and-Such" is still prevalent. Seventhly, there is no law forcing anyone to use any title, but all official documents, etc., do use them. Hence, the passage in general was quite misleading, leading to my (hopefully correct) decision to remove it. -- Emsworth 20:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: Someone put that this was a failed FARC.  But I can't find any record of the discussion of it there at all.  What's the deal? john k 15:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the March to July 2004 archive (about half way down). Presumably the template is new and someone's going back through the archives adding it to them all. Proteus (Talk) 15:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FARC? 

message: We seem to have a problem with the Australian articles. User Adam Carr is removing styles [Rt Hon] or medals [VC] from any person who was involved with Australia. He explains this by objecting to "pompous and grovelling... feudal titles"  and that "If British or New Zealand or whatever Wikipedians want to clutter up their articles with ugly titles and acronyms, that's their business. Australian users have decided that we don't want them." 
This leaves us in the situation that a British peer who serves as Governor General has styles removed. A British peer who serves as a Canadian or New Zealand GG has them left alone. You can find links at Governor-general_of_Australia Oddly the link page has the full styles that are then removed from most/all of the articles. This breaks all consistency across wiki articles. Can anyone suggest how we solve thisAlci12
:As an Australian I disagree with Adam Carr. Someone should tell him he lost the referendum. Avalon 01:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian 'Politicians'

message: I was not able to find a fully satisfactory answer here under 'Styles and Titles' (nor at Forms of Address in the United Kingdom) to a question about how to refer to Life Peers who have the same name as an existing peer. Let us take the example of the late Lord Dacre of Glanton (Hugh Trevor-Roper). I understand he had to take the additional title 'of Glanton' because there was already a (hereditary?) Lord Dacre. But how should he be written about? Clear it is necessary to speak of 'Lord Dacre of Glanton' at first usage, both out of correctness and in order to distinguish him from the other Dacre. But (and here is the question) does one need to repeat 'of Glanton' thereafter? This might be worth a sentence from someone who knows the correct form.
:I've never seen a definitive answer to this question (to which I have often given much thought), and it's not even addressed by works of correct form, let alone answered, but I'd tend to regard "Dacre of Glanton" as an indivisible entity — Lord Dacre of Glanton wasn't someone called Lord Dacre who came from Glanton (which would enable it to be snipped at second reference), he's someone whose title is "Baron Dacre of Glanton", and who definitely isn't Lord Dacre. If he isn't Lord Dacre, it's wrong to call him that, even at second reference. The fact that "of" is a connecting particle doesn't mean it should be treated as such when it's part of a peerage title, as grammatical rules shouldn't apply inside names. After all, it's just a translation of "de", found in some early peerage titles, and no one is going to refer to Lord Willoughby de Broke at second mention as "Lord Willoughby". If my legal name were "John Smith of Wikipedia", then I'd be referred to at second mention as "Mr Smith of Wikipedia", just as Henry Smith de Wikipedia would be called "Mr Smith de Wikipedia" — you couldn't truncate either of our names simply because they had an "of" (or a French version of "of") in them. Why should peerages be any different?
:It might sound slightly cumbersome, but that's his fault for choosing that title (I have often suspected that people like Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare and Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon chose their titles for the very reason that no one will ever use the second part). I've never seen any justification provided for the (extremely common) practice of snipping off the "of Y" except cumbersomeness, and there are other British forms of address which provide similar cumbersomeness — Lord Justice John Smith (forced to be such due to the existence of plain Lord Justice Smith) must be (and always would be by decent sections of the media) referred to as such even after first reference: if you don't want to keep writing "Lord Justice John Smith" you have to write "the Lord Justice" or "the judge" or similar.
:The situation is of course different for peers with "X and Y" titles, as they can quite correctly be called "Lord X" (and, indeed, if you called the Earl of Cork and Orrery "Lord Cork and Orrery" you'd get rather odd looks). Proteus (Talk) 17:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this discussion is ancient, but Proteus seems clearly wrong, unless we talk about the "Curzon of Kedleston Line."  (Which we do not, of course).  Curzon is always called "Lord Curzon," even though that title properly belongs as the courtesy title of Earl Howe's heir.  Given the fact that usage is one way, it is not wikipedia's job to prescribe usage in a different way because we think it is "more correct." john k 23:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe anyone asked what common usage is, but if they had have done then I'm sure your answer would have been useful. (I must admit, I am surprised at you of all people saying "it's common usage and therefore what we should use it". Would you like me to propose a move to Princess Diana, or will you be doing that yourself?) Proteus (Talk) 16:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I'm very late, but you were saying that on *second mentions* we couldn't call peers with territorial disambiguators by just "Lord X".  By that standard, we should have to refer to Lord Curzon as "Lord Curzon of Kedleston" or "Curzon of Kedleston" at every appearance of his name.  This seems clearly wrong. john k 13:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct reference to Life Peers 

message: Just editing Earl of Dundee and someone has added a 'succession' listing  to a pretended jacobite peerage of the same name. I haven't done anything as yet but personally don't think Wiki should add entries to non existant titles. It might be appropriate to add a comment that references the supposed creation but nothing more. Thoughts Alci12 16:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus with four in favour and four against. —Nightstallion (?) 08:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacobite Peerage