Talk:Hereditary peer

message: ===Hereditary peer===
(Uncontested -- July 7)
Self-nomination. -- Emsworth
*Support 172 05:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article candidacy comments (promoted)

message: (Uncontested -- July 7)
Self-nomination. -- Emsworth
*Support 172 05:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hereditary peer]]

message: With Reference to Prince as Degree within the British Peerage
"It is also possible to suggest that a principality is a peerage dignity."
Whereas it possible to suggest,it is is quite wrong. There are five degrees of the British peerage, no more, no less.
Of course I understand the source of confusion as the House of Lords Act 1999 states that "In this Act "hereditary peerage" includes the principality of Wales and the earldom of Chester." But note that whilst that may be the case for "this Act" it is not otherwise the case.
To explain further.
If you examine the Explanatory Notes produced in conjunction with the original House Of Lords Bill and in particular the Commentary on Clauses, you will see that it includes the following text.
(See http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmbills/034/en/99034x--.htm)
Clause 1: Exclusion of hereditary peers
5. The main provision of the Bill ends membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage....
6. The exclusion from membership applies to all those who are members of the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage, including - 
members of the Royal Family who have the right to sit and vote in the House (the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of York, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent); 
Here the authors of the bill are expressing their intentions as regards the legislation they wish enacted. Specifically they wish to ensure that no member of the Royal Family is a member of the House of Lords and since the only member of the royal family not known under a peerage dignity is the Prince of Wales it is felt necessary to include the Principality of Wales within the definition of an hereditary peerage for the purposes of the Act.
This is simply a typical belt and braces approach to legislation. The authors wished to ensure that no Prince of Wales later emerged and claimed that he was enitled to a seat in the House of Lords on the basis that he was not named in the act.
The whole point is this. The House of Lords Act 1999 does not support the contention that Prince is a degree within the British Peerage but quite the reverse, as if that where the case it would not have been neccessary to the specific clause that re-defined what constituted an herditary peerage.
I hope that is clear. Unfortunately it is neccessary to stamp on this sort of amateurish nonsense as otherwise it percolates all over the internet and generates its own validity through constant repetition.
ProfSmith
:As for the House of Lords Act 1999, I don't think it has any bearing on the issue. If the Principality of Wales were indeed a peerage dignity, the Act would have to be so worded to ensure that it is not treated as a life peerage dignity.
:It appears that even the editors of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica seem to have got this wrong, then: "Until recent years the title prince was never conferred on anybody except the heir-apparent to the Crown, and his principality is a peerage." It was on the basis of this remark—not on the basis of confusion caused by the House of Lords Act—that the reference to the Principality of Wales had been added.
-- Emsworth 14:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ISTM that this paragraph should be clarified, at least, to indicate that although some authorities consider the Principality of Wales to be a peerage (and the point is moot, since I don't believe anyone has been granted this title in modern times who was not already a Duke), other members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the title "Prince" are not considered hereditary peers by virtue of that title. RussBlau 17:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prince?

message: The table lists the number of princes as "1". This seems to be self evidently true, but there has actually been one other principality created by the Crown: the Prince of Arcot was created to replace the heirless Nawab of the Carnatic. Whilst this title remains in India, it was still created, presumably, via letters patent and counts, surely, as the only other creation of a principality apart from Wales?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.90.233 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Princes

message: Before peeresses were permitted to attend the House of Lords, would the heir-apparent of a countess or duchess suo jure be eligible for a writ of acceleration? --Anglius 19:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not, as long as the countess or duchess had a lower peerage dignity available to be accelerated. -- Emsworth 19:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: If the father is a duke and possesses a subsidary marquisate and earldom but no barony, would his eldest son be able to receive a writ of acceleration as the earl, provided that it is not of the main title, Lord Emsworth? I had assumed that only baronies are created by writ. --Anglius 20:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd imagine it would be theoretically possible, but as far as I'm aware it's never happened (I don't know of any instance of anyone being summoned by writ of acceleration even in a viscountcy). However, in such a situation I think it would be far more likely that the heir apparent in question would simply be created a baron. Proteus (Talk) 21:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your answer, Mr. Tilman. --Anglius 23:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I hope that you would not mind my inquiry, Mr. Tilman, but could the son of a viscount be able to receive a writ of acceleration if his father possesses more than one subsidary barony? --Anglius 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The only requirement for the procedure is that the father possesses more than one peerage. There has even been a case where the son of a baron who held two baronies was summoned in the junior of the two. Proteus (Talk) 09:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I thank you, sir --Anglius 01:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Writs of Acceleration

message: I am a clueless newbie, so I am not going to attempt to address this one myself.  However, writ of summons is included in this article as a link...and it just takes you back to the top of this article. This doesn't seem right.  How can it be fixed?
-- Talvin
:The 'link' could be omitted, sir. --Anglius 20:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone.Dave 03:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Writ of Summons Error?

message: Alan de Bretagne was made Earl of Cornwall in 1140 and, according to the Wkipedia article, "deprived" of this title in 1141, when it was given to Reginald de Dunstanville. Bretaygne lived until 1146, and retained the title of Earl of Richmond (granted to him in 1136) until his death, so presumably the Earldom of Cornwall was not forfeit because of some act against the monarch. And this is the only example I can find of a title being re-created during the lifetime of a former holder. Anyone know what happened there? 172.159.242.171 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In those days, an Earldom was an office. The King deciding that A should cease to be Earl and B should be instead was fairly common; the last parallel, I think, is the deprivation of George Neville, Duke of Bedford in 1478. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprived? 

message: Can somebody explain to me who is the Prince in the list with numbers of Hereditary Peers in 1999? Is this the Prince of Wales? If indeed, is he a Hereditary Peer? Demophon 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As indicated in an earlier comment, it is probably the Prince of Wales (see .  However strictly (I think) the title "Prince of Wales" is conferred by the sovereign on her (or his) eldest son, and the present Prince of Wales was probably a member of the House of Lords as Duke of Cornwall, which is a hereditary title vested in the severeign's eldest son.  Before Prince Charles' inauguration as Prince in the late 1960s, he was known as Duke of Cornwall.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh? Prince Charles was created The Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester on 26 July 1958, though his actual investiture did not take place until 1 July 1969. (from his article.)  Was he really known as Cornwall in 1968? —Tamfang (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my recollection that he was known as Duke of Cornwall when young.  The sovereign's heir-apparent automatically has this title.  I expect that sources could be found for this.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, from 1952 to 1958 his highest title was Duke of Cornwall; but was he still referred to by that title after 1958? – Wasn't the investiture of 1969 a new invention? —Tamfang (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text: In spite of the fact he's Prince of Wales, which is the justification for the Union of England and Wales. Complete Peerage has no listing for Wales, although it does for Cornwall and Chester.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hereditary Peers in 1999: 1 Prince?? 

message: The caption for the picture of a Duke of Cumberland mentions the number of persons deprived of hereditary peerages pursuant to the Titles Deprivation Act 1917.  It was recently changed from three to four and reverted.  Four persons were affected but, as two of them were this duke and his son (who had no peerage but was a Prince of the UK), they had only three peerages between them (not counting subsidiary titles). —Tamfang (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles Deprivation Act 

message: It seems there is a sixth peerage created since 1965: Viscount Macmillan of Ovenden, given to Macmillan at the same time as his earlship, currently held by his great-grandson. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Earldoms invariably created with subsidiary Viscountcies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.253.61 (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except when they're not; e.g. Huntingdon, Devon, Lisburne, Belmore, Caledon, Ducie. —Tamfang (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, in which case one's eldest son simply invents a title! ha --86.165.253.61 (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there are some senior titles that do not have subsidiary ones at all levels.  Nevertheless, the practice was to grant them.  Technically, they are separate titles, but only get used as courtesy titles, so that they hardly count.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Anyway: I've changed the article to remove (at least one instance of) confusion between the number of new peerages and the number of new peers. —Tamfang (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sixth new peer 

message: A total list of the number of peerages created by each of the kings/queens would be nice, not only for the Stuarts. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total list 

message: The articles says, "Peerage dignities are created by the Sovereign by either writs of summons or letters patent. Under modern constitutional conventions, no peerage dignity would be created except upon the advice of the Prime Minister." While that is certain true for the most part, are royal peerages such as Prince Edward's being created "Earl of Wessex" dependent on ministerial advice? I acknowledge that it's possible, but that doesn't sound right to me. -Rrius (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Prime Minister's weekly meetings with the Queen are a matter on which nothing is published, so that we cannot know.  I think it highly likely that the subject was discussed in detail, but it may have been more a case of the Prime Minister acceding to the Queen's wishes than vice versa.  The issue of letters patent, in fact, requires documents to be signed (or sealed) by various officials, such as the Lord Chancellor.  They are political appointees, so that the grant of any peerage today is a political decision.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, my particular issue is with the phrase "except upon the advice of the Prime Minister". As I'm sure you are aware, the term "advice" has a special meaning in the context of ministers and monarchs. If the situation is in fact that the Queen consults the Government, and they acquiesce, that is almost the reverse of ministerial advice. My concern here is not that the article belabour the point; rather, I want the article to accurately reflect reliable sources. If we cannot establish how royal peerages work, then we should either acknowledge that or limit what is now absolute language—perhaps by amending it to read, "...created except upon the advice, or at the very least the assent..." or something of that sort. As an aside, what is the purpose of using the word "dignity"? If it serves some purpose, is it necessary to use it twice in quick succession? That passage is the first point where the word is used, and it is not defined. In short, why not just say "peerage(s)"? -Rrius (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern, but think you may be making too much of an issue of it.  I suggest you amend it as you think appropriate.  If I (or some one else) does not like it, we can either revert or edit further.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I'm making too much of it. The text as written appears to overstate matters, but I am not expert enough to feel secure in swooping in and making the change. It would be one thing if we actually had a source to paraphrase, but we don't. I think I'll just wait and see if anyone else responds. -Rrius (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight omission? 

message: : Only eight hereditary peers have been created after 1965: five in the Royal Family (the Duke of York, the Earl of Wessex, the Duke of Cambridge, the Earl of Strathearn, the Baron Carrickfergus) and three additional creations under Margaret Thatcher's government (the Viscount Whitelaw, the Viscount Tonypandy and the Earl of Stockton).
The last three royal peers mentioned are the same person.  If we're listing new peers there should be six (three royal); if we're listing new peerages there should be twelve (eight royal) — if I haven't lost count!  I'll remove Strathearn and Carrickfergus. —Tamfang (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of recent peer(age)s 

message: Can anyone provide a list of non UK citizens created UK peers ?
(User talk:Siyac) 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what you mean by a UK citizen (a tricky question). All peers have been British subjects; but that's not the same thing. There was exactly one peerage given to an Indian.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Baron Sinha Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I think there are a few UK peerages that have devolved upon heirs who are not UK citizens.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See Lord Fairfax; there are also Peers with Australian citizenship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peers without UK citizenship 

message: The article mentions that "A peer who disclaims the peerage loses all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage", but nowhere in the article does it mention what rights and privileges are associated with peerage (besides sitting in Parliament). What are they? Do they vary?
Julesd 13:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights and privileges 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Hereditary peer. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130116034858/http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/Honours.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/Honours.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hereditary peer. 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/20130103205512/http://www.parliament.uk/education/online-resources/parliament-explained/members-house-of-lords/mps-need-to-know/ to http://www.parliament.uk/education/online-resources/parliament-explained/members-house-of-lords/mps-need-to-know/
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, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hereditary peer. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Peerage_Law.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908100412/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/106i/106i01.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/106i/106i01.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) 03:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hereditary peer. 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/20040630060220/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990511/text/90511-19.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990511/text/90511-19.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) 22:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As the "vast majority of hereditary peerages can only be inherited by men", it would be interesting to give the (approximate) number of peerages which allow female succession, ideally separated by the degree to which they allow it. For some of those, like the Duchy of Marlborough and Scottish duchies, a female peeress is only a hypothetical possibility as there would have to be no male-line descendants of the original title holder at all (however distant) for a daughter to succeed. OTOH, the Earldom of Mar has succession by heirs general, which apparently means male primogeniture, giving daughters a realistic chance to succeed if she has no brothers (e.g. the Countess of Mar's younger brother died before succession, and her daughter is an only-child and thus the heiress presumptive). And are there any peerages that practice actual gender-neutral succession, like the monarchy does since 2011?--46.114.1.186 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female inheritance 

message: Surely this article should begin with a definition of what a hereditary peer actually is? Something along the lines of "A/An hereditary peer is ..."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoniGlaser (talk • contribs) 07:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: :
Now I'm wondering how many such husbands were thus ennobled before 1960, and how many royal ladies have married since then. —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  husbands of princesses