Talk:Australian peers and baronets

message: ::::::Done. Article now moved.petedavo 08:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article, old article redirects here

message: Good start, but I have a few issues with this article.
* As noted above, baronetcies are not part of the peerage, so all all references to Clarke and Way should be removed.
* Although they both had significant Australian connections, Slim and Birdwood were not Australians.  Their titles do include reference to Australian places (although there is no such place as Anzac in the Commonwealth of Australia), but this no more makes them Australian peers than Baroness Sue Ryder of Warsaw’s title makes her a Polish peeress.  Maybe there should be a separate section towards the end of the article for these peers who had Australian associations but who were not Australians as such.
* We say Birdwood’s grandson is the 3rd baronet; this should be 3rd baron
* Bruce – “our only Prime Minister to be awarded a peerage” – the tone should be neutral, and not suggest that the article is written only by Australian editors.
* There’s no mention of life peers – Lord May of Oxford immediately comes to mind.   He was made a life peer only in 2001, and I have still not got to the bottom of why Australians are still being given these Imperial gongs despite clear Australian government policy from both sides of the political divide not to permit them.  --  JackofOz 12:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I started this only because I found this issue fascinating. The changes suggested would be great. What's mentioned against each name is only just copied from the particular persons article. petedavo 02:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go at a serious clean up.  I decided to leave the baronetcies in, but place them last; even though they're not peerages, they are a form of hereditary honour, and people interested in such matters would probably appreciate them.  --  JackofOz 04:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks that way, but I can't speak for the completeness of Petedavo's original list.  In fact, I'm sure there are other Aussies we can include here.  "Who's Who in Australia" used to include lists of living Aussie peers, baronets and knights, and I'm sure I remember reading about 10 years ago about a woman from country NSW who became a peeress - she had a name like Trixie something.  I'll check it out at the library tomorrow, if I remember.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My original  intent to create some sort of list was born out of the curiosity of finding out that Bunbury in WA was going to be a Baroncy, so I thought 'I wonder if there is any others'. My intent here is to present a list of Titles created for Australian Places, not for Australians specifically. I was going to originally include people with titles living in Australia, like Lord Alistair McAlpine etc but had to start applying limits to the list. The first limit was knocking out everyone of knight and below, therefore that left Baronetcies and above, so I called it Peers only for the shake of stopping people adding knights and below.petedavo (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see.  The title is a little misleading, in that case.  "Australian Peers" refers to people.  If you wanted to restrict it to titles, it might have been "Australian Peerages".  But that would immediately capture all Australians who hold UK peerages, including any whose titles make no reference to Australian places.  I suppose a better description of what you wanted would be "Peerages with Australian-related Titles", or something like that.   Btw, I've just noticed we're listing Howard Florey under Hereditary Peerages but we say he was a life peer (which he was).  I'll fix it.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta daaa!  I've found Trixie - she's Rachel Trixie Anne, Baroness Gardner of Parkes see here.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now there's an article on her.  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A few queries

message: Having never heard of this person, I did some digging.  This tells us that Sir Robert Lowe Hall (d. 17 September 1998) was created Baron Roberthall, of Silverspear in Queensland and of Trenance in the County of Cornwall [U.K. LIFE PEER] on 28 October 1969.This confirms those details.  Note: It's Silverspear, not Silverspur.
So, he's apparently a Briton who was given a Life Peerage whose title includes an Australian place.  This puts him into a category of his own.  I'll see if I can create a new category.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, he was an Aussie who moved to the UK. .  He belongs with Florey and May.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roberthall

message: Such honours included peerages, which at that time were all hereditary 
Eregli bob (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It refers to "originally" in the preceding sentence, "Australians, then being British subjects, were originally eligible to receive British Imperial Honours".  It was meant to refer to the entire period from 1788, or more particularly from 1901, up until the period when our governments started to no longer recommend British Honours for Australians, which started with Whitlam.  Life peerages only started in the early 1960s.  Bruce's and Forrest's peerages were definitely created as hereditary peerages because there was no other way to do it prior to life peerages.   Casey was a life peer.  A fuller list is in the article but I'm sure we've missed one or two.  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction.  Life peerages started in 1958.  It was possible to create them prior to that, but the practice was obsolescent.  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean ?? 

message: Clive Latham Baillieu, 1st Baron Baillieu was born and went to school in Australia and later moved to the UK, where he was granted an hereditary peerage, but with a reference to Australia in the title ("Sefton in the Commonwealth of Australia").  Does this mean that Stanley Bruce has to give up his "sole Australian hereditary peer" claim, or do we consider that Baillieu ceased being an Australian some time after he left, despite his Australian-sounding title? --  JackofOz (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on his nationality not his title (just as Viscount Montgomery of Alamein would not be described as an Egyptian peer!) It says he was British-Australian. It seems reasonable to describe him as Australian as he was born in Australia - I'm not sure what citizenship he would have had, given Australia's status at various stages of his life. JRawle (Talk) 11:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  We need to make some note about him in the article.  He got his peerage in 1953, and died in 1967, both of which were after the Australian citizenship laws came into force (1949).  I wonder what happened to Aussie-born people who were residents of the UK in 1949 (or of other countries, for that matter) and had not gone through some formal process of obtaining the nationality/citizenship of their new country. Did they automatically become Australian citizens, or was it possible to somehow "disclaim" it, or was it dependent on the length of time they'd been absent from Australia prior to 1949?  If his peerage had been granted prior to 1949, there'd be no issue, since all Australians, like all Britons, were British subjects, and it was enough to have been born in Australia to make one "an Australian", even if they'd lived for many years in some other Commonwealth realm.  After 26 January 1949, that changed.  Being born in Australia made you an Australian citizen by birth, but it was possible to relinquish your Australian citizenship at some later stage.  Baillieu may have done that for all we know.  We need to find out whether he was an Australian citizen at the time he got his peerage in 1953.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would bung him in as this list I created was entirely for titles 'that have something to do with Australia'. It some cases the title holders were originally born England anyway. PS: It would still remain a very small list regardless. Petedavo talk contributions 12:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've added some appropriate words, and downplayed Bruce's claim to be the only Australian hereditary peer.  That still may prove to be right, when we get more info on Baillieu.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clive Baillieu

message: The 7th Earl lives in Sydney. He's probably worth a mention in the article.203.31.52.137 (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we know what his citizenship is?  Just living in Australia does not make a peer an Australian peer.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't know what his citizenship is, but he lives here. I'd consider that a sufficient reason for him to be listed under "Hereditary peers with Australian associations".203.31.52.137 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  If it's cited, fair enough.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl of Portarlington? 

message: The policy seems to be a little opposite in the article here. Leefkrust22 (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boldface 

message: What do we do with James Atkin, Baron Atkin?  --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: James Atkin, Baron Atkin

message: I've recently come across various articles about various non-british nobles/royalty who either live/d in Australia or married an Australian, like a von bulow, a Princess Radziwill, the son of the last Nizam of Hyderabad, a Crown Princess of Albania etc. is there any interest of adding a section here? Australia's tenuous noble connections were more than the british. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-british nobility with Australian associations? 

message: I would argue that John Forrest's title should be included (even if only as a courtesy title):
* John Forrest's title is listed as extinct (and so as valid) in the authoritative Burke's Peerage (1920), and his widow is clearly listed as a Baroness: https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=PNc7AQAAMAAJ&dq=%22Baroness+Forrest%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Baroness+Forrest%22
* Most reference and government sources treat the title as having been created: e.g., http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/forrest-sir-john-6211, https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Forrest, http://exhibitions.senate.gov.au/pogg/members/forrest.htm
* WA's official monument to him (his statue in King's Park) describes him as a Baron: http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/people/government---state/display/61009-john-forrest
* Even assuming that the peerage was not formally created, there is precedent in Britain for the use of a peerage title as a courtesy despite the failure of its formal creation: see Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (1660–1661), Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (1677).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.194.134.197 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: John Forrest

message: What shall we do with What shall we do with Mary and her offspring? Petedavo talk contributions 06:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a question of citizenship. Mary certainly should be on this list (an oversight even I've made) but as for future generations, that could get interesting. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary, future Queen of Demark 

message: I think this pages title is counter-intuitive. "Peers" can mean anything.. It should be perhaps like, "Australian formal titles"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.42.44 (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title