Talk:Peerage of the United Kingdom: Difference between revisions

United Kingdom Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Thatcher baronets says "It is the only baronetcy to be granted since 1964 (as of 2017) and is one of only three extant hereditary titles awarded outside the British royal family since 1965" but it is not listed in the 'Ranks' section which lists another baron created in 1965. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.19.12 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are Life Peers? Is there a cut-off year? Rmhermen

The ones in the 'Life Barons and Baronesses in the Peerage of the UK' section. Morwen 20:53, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

I see. I guess there is no way to do a table of contents with it all in a table which would otherwise help. Also is Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 correct? Maybe 1976? Rmhermen 05:24, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, 1876 is correct. Of course, since Law Lords are for life only, ones created under that act before 1960-odd are all dead by now. The basic situation is that the monarch has always had the right to create life peerages, but these life peers did not have right to sit in parliament until the 1876 act, which allowed for the creation of Lords of Appeal for life only. This was expanded in 1958 to allow the creation of any number of life peers. For a while, both life and hereditary peerages were granted, but the granting of hereditary peerages (with only five exceptions, two for the Queen's sons) stopped with the inception of the Harold Wilson government in 1964 (although a few were created in the first years of that - presumably their creation had been announced under Douglas-Home, but the creation was delayed).

As to the table question, I'd suggest that the table be broken up, to allow the page to be split into sections (and that this be done to all the peerage pages). john 06:05, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've made a stab at doing this; is it all right? Sadly the diff is so large that it times out (useful, huh?), but I don't think that I missed anything out.

BTW, shouldn't this page really be at Peerages of the United Kingdom, or List of Peerages of the United Kingdom, given that we're talking about the peerages themselves rather than the framework within which they exist (which is covered in Peerage)...? James F. (talk) 10:26, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

While "peerage" normally means "British title of nobility", this page uses the other meaning, which is "grouping of peers". All those with peerages of the United Kingdom collectively make up the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Peerage uses this meaning as well, as it is about "the peerage" rather than about "peerages" ("The peerage is a system of titles of honour unique to Britain..."). Proteus 10:42, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I suggest "nobility" is a better word for the institution described here. "Peerage" is better preserved as a countable noun, referring to one or more instances of the nobility. Thus, an earldom is a peerage forming part of the nobility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.112.162 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 31 May 2005

It's not an editor's choice. The formal, official, name of the collective institution is "Peerage of the UK". Noel (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What, please, makes it formal etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.231.22 (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is pretty big. Is there any reason not to split it up into:

• Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
• Marquesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
• Earls and Countesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
• Viscounts in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
• Hereditary Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
• Life Barons and Baronesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom

with of course the appropriate pointers here? Noel (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see no reason not to do sa, and there hasn't been an objectin in 4 months, so I'm going to Be Bold and split up the page. SeventyThree^(Talk) 04:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Duke of Norfolk? I believe this list is incomplete.

It may or may not be incomplete, but if you will search for the "Duke of Norfolk" you will find him in the article. - Nunh-huh 08:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the lists of life peerages higher than a baron? In history also higher life peerages were created upto duchess. I fail to see them here. Or concerns these listings only still existing and living peerages? Demophon (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe life peerages have ever been created as anything other than Barons. 90.241.13.206 (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not true. Cecilia Underwood was created Duchess of Inverness for life, in her own right, by Queen Victoria, on 10 April 1840. So again, where are the lists of life peerages higher than a baron? Demophon (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No she wasn't. The title was created with the standard heir male remainder. There were however many other titles created for women for life only. AllsoulsDay (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the peerage do Baronets and baronetcies rank. I believe above Barons. Why are they not included in the list ? 193.195.196.141 (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baronetcies are not peerages and they are not titles of nobilty. They rank below barons and some orders of knighthood. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read in the article it was in 1964 when the British government stopped creating peers. I also read that that happened when Harold Wilson came into power. Well, my question is, why did he decided to do that? I mean, the article details the fact that no more peers were to be created, but does not state the reason to make such a decision. So I would appreciate a line or two on the subject. Greetings, --85.57.70.254 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. This article says nothing of the kind. -Rrius (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now it does... The reason is obvious I think. Hereditary titles are essentially undemocratic in nature... If someone deserves an accolade or an award it should not automatically go to his descendants... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.83.102 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there's an average of ten hereditary peerages created per year up until about 1964, and after that almost none - and usually then mainly for members of the royal family. Is there any reason why this is so, as the article doesn't address this? What i'm getting at is this: is there some sort of policy (official or unofficial) to let hereditary titles eventually dwindle or die out through attrition? For instance, why aren't former PMs made hereditary earls any more? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Wilson's government basically decided to stop creating hereditary peerages. Heath's government was reluctant to reverse this policy, so by the time Thatcher came in, there was a fifteen year precedent in not creating hereditary titles. Thatcher apparently wanted to revive the creation of hereditary peerages, which is why she president over the creation of three for non-royal family members (Stockton, Tonypandy, Whitelaw), but this was apparently an abortive effort. john k (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peerage of the United Kingdom. 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/20080512064855/http://www.ukdukes.co.uk/ to http://www.ukdukes.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the sections titled "(title)s in the Peerage of the United Kingdom", should be removed. It's all already covered, in the section "Lists of peers". Besides which, the list of Barons is woefully incomplete, as it doesn't include life peers. (and this article is "Peerage of the United Kingdom". Not "Hereditary peerage of the United Kingdom")--213.113.50.182 (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]