Talk:Lord Chancellor

message: The news item from No. 10  makes it clear that
:Once the reforms are in place, the post of Lord Chancellor will be abolished... [my emphasis]
...so technically speaking it hasn't been abolished today (June 12). It's not yet clear to me whether Lord Falconer is Lord Chancellor, or has just been authorised to "exercise its powers". It appears that he won't use the title. --rbrwr 18:41 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps he's Lord Keeper. ;-)  Sigh... as an American who is absolutely not affected by this change, I am saddened.  My high tory sentiments always poking through my center-left facade, or something... john 23:35 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:Well, BBC Radio just referred to him as "Lord Chancellor", so it seems that the job has a temporary reprieve, and I've just found this at the Number 10 website:
::Asked if Lord Falconer would be known as Lord Chancellor the PMOS said that in the transition period between his taking office and the establishment of the new arrangements he would be known as Lord Chancellor. Once it was established he would be known as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. Asked if the changes meant we would be without a Lord Chancellor for the first time in a thousand years the PMOS told journalists that after the transition that would be the case. 
:I'll change things around again when I have time --rbrwr
Of course, the PMOS was not speaking the truth when he said that this would be the first time in a thousand years Britain would be without a Lord Chancellor.  There was no Lord Chancellor between April 1835 and January 1836, most recently, as the office was in commission then.  I think the article's okay as it is, until the office officialy gets abolished. john 07:14 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I'm saddened too. More bloody destruction of one of the most historic offices in world history. As an Irishman I have to say that I think it is a disgrace. :-( Re the issue of the stuff on the Number 10 website - one of the joys of the press briefings (as someone who has received them in Ireland and once in the UK) is that they are frequently bullshit. The press aide doesn't know the answer. If he can, he will give what is called a non-reply reply which sounds like an answer but isn't. (Like CJ in The West Wing!) If it is vital to give an answer and he has been told to give an answer so that the 6'O'Clock News has something to carry, he will give a nice straight-forward soundbite, then come back later with an "opps. Was double checking that and it isn't as straight-forward I unintentionally (sic) suggested". The issue of Falconer as LC is a classic example. On the one hand, they suggested that Falconer will become the Sec. of State for Constitutional Affairs (ie, NOT Lord Chancellor), on the other they say that he wouldn't fulfil the judicial and legislative judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor (ie,. IS Lord Chancellor). Unfortunately this nonsense wasn't picked up by the media (if John Cole was still in the BBC, he would have spotted it immediately!). They drowned the journalists in acres of crap (briefings, faxes, more briefings, appointments timed to go out during news bulletins to make Tony look more 'in control' and 'presidential', large chunks of biographies, spins about changes due the next day, etc ) all in the hope that patent absurdities like that wouldn't be noticed by journalists too busy getting the OB stuff ready in a couple of minutes. Classic Labour spin, and as evidence of just how bullshitty it was, just look at who was sitting on the woolsack this morning. Why Lord Falconer, of course, whom Downing Street stated categorically yesterday would not be there. And he was being called Lord Chancellor, wearing the Lord Chancellor's gown and wig, surrounded by the Lord Chancellor's regalia, all the stuff Downing Street said wouldn't be happening. 
BTW remember also - the Lord Chancellor cannot be abolished at the whim of Tony. He has to:
* consult with all the interested parties
* redirect all the executive, legislative and judicial functions
* find a new speaker for the Lords
* get the Queen's agreement on who would be her new representative in Parliament (the LC is now. If she can't do a state opening, he reads the Queen's Speech from the steps of the throne. (If he couldn't, the Prince of Wales would. But Tony has already removed him as a Hereditary out of the Lords, so Tony is going to have to do a hell of a lot of problem-solving)
* get a Bill abolishing the office through the Commons and Lords. If the Lords say 'no' (and IDS was making a big issue of the constitution today. We'll have to keep an eye on the Tory press to see if they begin to make an issue of it, having been told to do so by IDS.) it will be blocked for . . . how long is now, 3 sessions? . . . unless he opts to use the Parliamentary Act. I very much doubt if the office will be abolished by Christmas and may well still exist this time next year. And if Tony has made as much of a screw-up as it looks like he has (Scottish Office in Constitutional Affairs, Secretary of State (without a department!) in the Commons, a Sec of State for Health in a part of the UK over which he has no role as Heath minister, A Welsh office gone to Cons. Affairs, A Welsh Sect in the Commons without a Department, who is also Leader of the House/Lord Privy Seal/Official ministerial spokesman for the cabinet/etc etc etc) I think Lord Falconer has plenty of time to buy his own full-bottomed wig! He may be wearing it for months if not years to come. It is quite possible if things go wrong with Tony's very mucked up scheme that it may get bogged down in consultations for 6 months to a year, a House of Lords block followed by the Parliament Act delay for another year, add in a euro referendum, the european constitution, etc and this may be one of those things that Tony plans to do, but not yet! FearÉIREANN 04:04 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, no wonder I got confused! --rbrwr
Is there any convention for the naming of LCs? e.g.
John Smith, Lord Smith of Ely
or
John Patrick Smith, Lord Smith of Ely
John Smith, Lord Smith of Ely
or
John Smith, Lord Smith of Ely (later 1st Viscount Eastminster)
or
John Smith, 1st Viscount Eastminster 
I can't see any pattern as to middle names. It is obviously correct to give the name of the person when he was LC, but should we bother giving later titles?
??? Andrew Yong 09:04, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been given some explanation as to the Lord Chancellor's effective duties, but I think things would be clearer if some kind of structure was given so as to make a difference between the important roles of the lord chancellor, and more ceremonial or rarely exercised powers. David.Monniaux 17:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older discussion 

message: "Tony Blair's ministry"? What on earth does that mean? Sorry, but it seems meaningless to me: please explain, or correct. Thanks. 82.35.17.203 01:01, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It means Tony Blair's administration or government. -- Emsworth 01:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does it seem to you to make sense in everyday English? In UK English in particular?? To me, it certainly does not. "Tony Blair's ministry" sounds like one ministry for which Blair would be responsible, in the sense that "David Blunkett's ministry" would be the Home Office. To me, it's desperately meaningless in UK English: though I acknowledge it may have meaning elsewhere I don't think it's right for this article. 82.35.17.203 16:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So I changed it to administration. Hope this is OK. 82.35.17.203 18:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a shame you do not understand the word ministry. It is the normal UK term - e.g. "the second Gladstone ministry", etc. Administration is a US usage, though I accept it may be more common now. Andrew Yong 00:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tony Blair's ministry" - is this nonsense? 

message: On the 30th November, the Lord Chancellor submitted ammendments to the Constitutional Reform Bill which removed the 'Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs' from the Bill. All references to "the Minister" in the Bill would (if the ammendments are approved, which they almost certainly will) refer to the Lord Chancellor instead of the Secretary of State. The Telegraph today confirmed that the position of Lord Chancellor will now remain and the government are happy that as long as their other reforms are passed this will be fine.
The House of Lords have succeeded in keeping this Great Officer of State! :)
dpaajones (2nd December 2004)
: Sounds good. :-)
: 
: James F. (talk) 00:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Chancellor to not be abolished - official 

message: The Constitutional Reform Bill has today been approved by both Houses of Parliament, though only with a majority of 12 in the Lords.
I think this article, as well as many others on Wiki, will now need to be updated. The Bill will very soon recieve Royal Assent and when this happens it will be law.
Anyone up for the job? ;)
I will do so soon (after it receives the Royal Assent—or, to be more precise, when the Government issues a Commencement Order). -- Emsworth 20:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite of this article now required? 

message: Would it be appropriate to include a brief mention of the satirical Lord Chancellor in Gilbert & Sullivan's Iolanthe?  Where in the article, if anywhere, could such a note be included? —Josiah Rowe 08:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Iolanthe'''s Lord Chancellor 

message: The Lord  Chancellor hadn't always been a peer before today.  Thomas More wasn't a peer, for instance.  I believe the Lord Chancellor has always been a peer since the 17th century, but that's not the same thing.  john k 13:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely they were peers spiritual, as Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop of York? john k 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, thinking about it, I said Straw was the first non-peer since the 17th century, but Charles Yorke was Lord Chancellor in 1770, and died before his peerage patent actually came through.  Ought he to count? john k
At best, the Lord Chancellor has always been associated with the House of Lords since he acted as their Speaker -- even when he wasn't a peer.  Since the Blair Government divided the roles of Speaker of the House of Lords and Lord Chancellor, there is no longer even this tie.  14:31, 2 July 2007 (BST)
True enough - it would seem fair to say that Straw is the first MP to serve as Lord Chancellor. john k 14:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Straw is not quite the first MP to serve as Lord Chancellor. Several commoners have been appointed and started serving in the role before being ennobled - in 1939 Sir Thomas Inskip was noted in the papers as sitting on the Woolsack before he was made Viscount Caldecote. (Technically the Woolsack - and the area immediately around it - is not part of the floor of the Lords, so a non-peer can be on it. Simon expounds on this point in his memoirs.) I'd guess that some others appointed from the Commons were sworn in before they were ennobled but can't guess off hand. It might be worth putting this in the article - I'll fish out Simon's memoirs when I'm next in the library. Timrollpickering 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Always a peer"? 

message: The Tory frontbench separates the roles of Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor. Does anyone know what the Tories intend to do with those roles in a future Tory government? -Rrius (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative plans 

message: Currently there's a link to 'right of prescription' that leads to the entry for 'time immemorial'... This is more than a little confusing. Is 'right of prescription' a term for a right that is in place by longstanding convention (i.e., since time immemorial)? Could someone knowledgeable clarify this, and perhaps also modify the entry for 'time immemorial' as well? MJM74 (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Right of prescription' 

message: Am I right in thinking that the plural of Lord Chancellor is in fact "Lords Chancellor" and not "Lord Chancellors", as is used primarily through this article? I had thought it was a compound plural, like "Attorneys-General" or "Mothers-in-law", but then I noticed one of the referenced books was entitled "Lives of the Lord Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal of England : from the earliest times till the reign of King George IV", so now I'm unsure. Can anyone give me a definite answer? Capreolus (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lord Chancellor is primarily a Chancellor, not primarily a Lord. john k (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The usage of the article is explained in the first footnote. Mhardcastle (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compound plurals 

message: An interesting speech recently made by the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/speech030309a.htm
Perhaps useful for adding information and/or references to this article? David (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that Straw says that Christopher Hatton was a sitting MP at the time he was appointed Lord Chancellor, while our article denies that that had ever happened (see last sentence of 'Reform'). Which is right? Mhardcastle (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Straw's recent speech 

message: I thought, from my undisciplined reading, that the main difference between a Lord Chancellor and a Lord Keeper was that the sovereign owed the Lord Chancellor a whopping big salary.  Back then, appointing a man Lord Keeper for a year or so allowed the sovereign to save some money, as well as trying him out before giving him a patent sealed with the Great Seal. J S Ayer (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between Lord Chancellor and Lord Keeper 

message: Why does the infobox say the Lord Chancellor's postion was created in the 18th century, yet the history sections says the office goes all the way back to William the Conqueror?
Which one is right?
And should there be a clarification? It's somewhat amibiguous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.218.141 (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The mess is people assuming that the 1707 Act of Union saw everything recreated. Most positions and posts just carried on the same as ever. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of creation? 

message: The article said until recently that Lord Shaftesbury was the last Lord Chancellor (1672-1673) who was a cleric.  He wasn't a cleric; check our article on him, or the Dictionary of National Biography, or any other source.  He also wasn't a lawyer, and some historian I read years ago said that Shaftesbury, although gifted with remarkable mental powers, often felt painfully his lack of technical knowledge.  Did the work cited actually say that Lord Shaftesbury was the last Lord Chancellor who wasn't a lawyer?  If it actually says he was a cleric, we have a problem. J S Ayer (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: His Wikipedia article says that he joined Exeter College, Oxford, in 1637, fomented a riot and left without taking a degree, entered Lincoln's Inn in 1638 and went to live in the house of the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal on marrying his daughter in 1639. Before that he had been educated by private tutors. So it looks as if his official legal education was limited to one year, but who knows how much he read on his own? NRPanikker (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Shaftesbury 

message: As a reminder, we have an article on commas for those unfamiliar with their use. It is true, in former ages, that we used them, in many odd places, more to indicate a pause, when reading aloud, than according to any firm, or fast, logical rule... but we read silently now. They should only be employed—in the present situation—for actual parentheticals (i.e. where the second instance is an inferior form of the first) and not on every occasion where two names of equal rank are being mentioned. If you really want the second name in the lead, accept that it's important enough that commas are inappropriate. (In fact, it obviously is important enough to not be treated as a parenthetical: it's the article's actual namespace.)
If the commas are more important for some reason, the name itself isn't important enough to be in the lead sentence and should be moved downpage somewhere. Or come up with a third name, so a serial comma is actually appropriate... Or rephrase it along the lines of "Lord Chancellor, formally known as the &c"... (This is actually the correct format per the . We should lead with the article namespace wherever possible.) — LlywelynII 13:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case the second name *is* an inferior form of the first. An argument based on the *relative importance* of the two terms is far more of a justification than one claiming that punctuation style choices are 'grammar'. May I also suggest that you don't accuse other contributors of lying when you disagree with them? Mhardcastle (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: This is a response to the following note put on my talk page:
As I said in my original edit, I don't think a paragraph-long description of what turned out to be a fairly minor storm in a teacup in the context of the thousand-year history of the post is really necessary in the lead of the article, but a sentence *integrated with the existing discussion of reform* might be appropriate. Please discuss on the talk page of the article rather than reverting. Mhardcastle (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph on New Labour's changes in the lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lord Chancellor. 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/20080725205757/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Sir_Christopher_Hatton to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Sir_Christopher_Hatton
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313034740/http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/speech030309a.htm to http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/speech030309a.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) 10:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lord Chancellor. 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/20040823041955/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldcomp/ctso01.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldcomp/ctso01.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030920052350/http://www.lcd.gov.uk/consult/lcoffice/index.htm to http://www.lcd.gov.uk/consult/lcoffice/index.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) 22:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We should clarify which of the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical functions are theoretical and which are active responsibilities of the current Lord Chancellor. It seems unlikely that the Lord Chancellor selects parish priests. It is more likely that priests are selected by the church hierarchy, even if the Lord Chancellor has a formal role of making the appointment. I have not found a source to confirm this. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecclesiastical functions 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Lord Chancellor is not "the highest ranking of the offices of state" as Wikipedia claims. It ranks below Lord High Stewart even though this office is vacant at the moment. The most Wikipedia can claim is that "the office of Lord Chancellor acts temporarly as the highest ranked office of state due to the current vacant status of Lord High Stewart". TommyBrunOlesen (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Chancellor is ranking below Lord High Stewart 

message: This article is called "Lord Chancellor", with the C capitalised (the L is capitalised because the first letter of an article's title always is). But the lead section talks about the "lord chancellor". Why the inconsistency? I submit that it should usually be capitalized, because this is the form sources normally use. For example the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 consistently uses the capitalised form. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent capitalisation