Talk:Peerage of Ireland

message: shouldn't a list of Irish peers only contain, you know, Irish peers, and the Gaelic nobles be moved to a different page?  john 11:14, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Irish nobility would be a good place for this, I'd think, and yeah, then we can make the Peerage of Ireland more standardized. john 00:34, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: old edit

message: What is the present-day position of Irish peers in the eyes of the Republic of Ireland? Specifically:
*What proportion of the peers live in the Republic (as opposed to in the UK or abroad)?
*Of those living in the republic, do they typically hold Irish or UK passports? If the former, do the passports include their titles or only their personal names?
*If there were a dispute over the descent of an Irish peerage, where would it be decided?
Thanks. Doops 20:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I looked a number of them up in the online Burke's (insofar as possible without registering), and I discovered several whose listed residence was in the republic, but whose CV included stints at Eton and/or in the British military. Doops 22:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I know that Lyon is, for all practical purposes, the arbiter of peerage disputes in Scotland. He would determine which individual is entitled to the deceased peer's arms undifferenced; the House of Lords would just abide by his decision. But I do not believe that the Earl Marshal or Garter have similar functions in England; I would imagine that the same would apply to Ulster. -- Emsworth 22:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  On one of the three questions - Irish law specifically allows for a choice between using the "peer name" or the ordinary first + family name combination. SeoR 11:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Republic of Ireland

message: some extinct titles have been haphazardly added.  Please don't do this - this page was meant to be a list of currently extant Irish peerdoms.  the List of dukedoms, etc. pages list all the extinct titles.  john k 20:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  extinct titles 

message: Peerage is a countable noun; the correct term is the nobility of Ireland.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You are wrong. Wereon (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: name

message: The claim that "titles of peerage being regarded as merely courtesy titles" in the Republic of Ireland is factually wrong. The constitution says they cannot be created or accepted, but it is silent on the status of those already in existence. Nor does any law state they are merely courtesy titles. In some republics it is explicitly stated in law or in a constitution that a peerage is abolished. Ireland's law does not state that. So they are in a limbo. They are not a creation of the state, and not abolished by the state, nor is their status defined by the state. They just are there. Someone here keeps misinterpreting the constitution and reading into it something that it very definitely does not say. John Hearne, its author, working under de Valera, deliberately left them in that limbo state. 213.233.148.4 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Factually wrong claim

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peerage of Ireland. 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/20090730151256/http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf to http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf
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) 12:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Target standards for Wikipedia Lists:
* 1. Prose; overall, features professional standards of writing.
* 2. Lede; has an engaging lede, of appropriate length (not trying to be an article) that introduces the subject, and defines the scope, and inclusion criteria.
* 3. Comprehensiveness: comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing where practical a complete set of items, but at least all of the major items.  Where appropriate, has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information, of appropriate length, and taking account of any separate articles which might exist or be reasonably likely to exist given notability requirements, about selected items.
* 4. Structure; is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
* 5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style, including making suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and color, and with a minimal proportion of redlinked items, and has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions (and non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.96.68.130 (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  List standards 

message: Do we know why some of the table entries are in italics? I didn't notice any annotation that provides an explanation. With concurrence, I'll get around to fixing them - eventually...  jxm (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics? 

message: In the short list of recently extinct titles, what does "(sep)" mean? —Tamfang (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Tamfang - I'm not really sure, I think it means that they used to be separate but became subsidiary titles upon the granting of a more senior title. For example, Earl of Egmont was created in 1733. The 1st Earl of Egmont was styled as Viscount Perceval. Upon the granting of the earldom, the viscountcy became a subsidiary title. I'm not really sure why it is there but this is just my assumption. DDMS123 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So are these cases of "the earldom is extinct but the viscountcy passes to a distant kinsman"? —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Tamfang - No, I think they are still extinct. I don't why it is showing a subsidiary title of an earldom. The viscountcies with "(sep)" should probably be removed from the extinct titles list as once the senior title goes extinct, so does the subsidiary titles. DDMS123 (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In each of these cases, the first Earl was the first of each of his titles, so indeed they all went together when they went.  But there plenty of examples of a lesser title surviving a higher one created later. —Tamfang (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  sep