Talk:British Peerage

Peerage title typo?

Hi, I noticed in the article the text "(One Marquesses - the Marquess Camden - bears a territorial title but does not use 'of'."

Does this mean that the current holder is a woman, or is the plural just a typo? I'm American, so it's hard to know for sure. Thanks! Pakaran 18:30, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That is a typo. "Marchioness" is the feminine of "Marquess". There are no Marchionesses in their own right. john 21:43, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Crown office lists Camden and Townsend as the two Marquessates that do not have "of", likewise only Grey is the only Earldom without "of" http://www.dca.gov.uk/dept/titles.htm#part8 garryq 12:13, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Peerage title tradition

I have seen pagest that assert that the bearer of the Marquessate of Douro is the Marquess Douro, and not the Marquess of Douro, though the same may not be necessarily correct: [1]. -- Lord Emsworth 22:36, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

P.S. It is probably "of Douro," as that style is used by Britannica: [2]. -- Lord Emsworth 22:37, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

It is "Marquess Douro". The current heir to the Dukedom uses "Marquess of Douro", however, presumably because he thinks it sounds better. Proteus 20:05 GMT 6th January 2004

Yes, Burke's gives "Marquess Douro"... of course, the official secondary title of the Dukes of Atholl is something like "Marquess of Tullibardin", but they've always used "Tullibardine", and so forth... john 20:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Crown office lists Camden and Townsend as the two Marquessates that do not have "of", likewise only Grey is the only Earldom without "of" http://www.dca.gov.uk/dept/titles.htm#part8 The problem is that Douro is in Portugal (or is it Spain), so political correctness might play a part too. Arthur Wellesley was 1st Marquess of Douro, before he was 1st Duke of Wellington, and "relegated" the Marequessate to being used as a mere courtesy title. garryq 12:11, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

images?

Does anybody have images of the peers' coronets or robes? -- Emsworth 02:46, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

"Thus, it is likely that the prestige of the hereditary peerage will be reduced, and therefore, some might call for its abolition."

I have to agree with the removal of this phrase by an anonymous user, and I doubt the NPOV of the preceding paragraph as well. I don't see any logical basis for either of this sentence's two assertions: firstly, the peerage has been largely disassociated with wealth for a long time, since political rather than economic success has been the main criterion for admission for more than a century; secondly, people have already called for its abolition, and have been largely ignored, and I see no relevance in pointing out that more people may call for its abolition in the future. Most political and social institutions have been criticised at some point by some group or other, and I don't see why the peerage should be singled out by it being implied that it is doomed to be abolished. Judging by examples in other countries, nobility seems to last longer than monarchy in most places, and I don't see the British monarchy being in any danger of abolition. Proteus 15:31, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

opening paragraph

The peerage is a system of titles of honour unique to Britain, and is one part of the British honours system. Peers were, historically, title holders entitled to be summoned to the House of Lords. The families of title-holders are not peers (though the wives of peers are traditionally known as peeresses). This is a fundamental distinction from the Continental system of titles, where families rather than individuals are ennobled, and where more than one person can hold the same title simultaneously.

Please reword this so the naive reader (such as myself) can get a grasp of the system. Currently, I feel this paragraph is written with a bit of an assumption that the reader already knows the topic at hand. Sincerely, Kingturtle 19:55, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization consistency of the word "peerage" ?

This article has several instances of Peerage with the P capitalized when it occurs in the middle of the sentence. Is this proper? There are also many instances with the P in lowercase. Shouldn't it be consistent one way or the other? Bevo 15:27, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the article, following the standard of capitalizing when referring to the Peerage as a whole, or to the Peerage of England, Scotland, etc, but otherwise using the lower case. -- Emsworth 18:16, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Pictures for this article

I think we should have Tony Benn, perhaps someone like Lord Bath, Byron, Lucan and to represent life peers, perhaps someone like Andrew Lloyd Weber or Waheed Alli? Mintguy (T) 15:47, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Typo?

many Princes, however, are granted peerates separately.

Is "peerates" a typo for "peerages", or a very obscure synonym? Marnanel 06:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Typo, I think. john 07:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Slight reword and question

I reworded the following sentence slightly, since I had to read it twice to get the point:

until the number of Irish peers ... reached (was reduced to) one-hundred, the Sovereign could not create a new Irish peerage until three previous titles became extinct.

But that brings up a question in my mind; how was the Peerage of Ireland (particularly those granted after the Act of Union) affected by the creation of the Irish Free State? I've checked the other pages and didn't really see an answer; are they just all now peerages of northern Ireland? -TimeLord mbw 18:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is still the Peerage of Ireland. The Irish Peers lost the right to elect representative peers to the House of Lords. I assume they have no particular rights in the Republic of Ireland (except maybe some heraldic ones), but presumably have similar rights to other peers in the U.K. (except they cannot renounce their peerages - c.f. the present Earl of Longford). I think there's a complex juridical relationship between the Republic and the UK on matters like this...if jtdirl was still around, I'm sure he could discuss this in more depth, but he seems to have vanished. john 19:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Interesting; I guess what was boggling my mind is "where" (for lack of a better word) do the Irish peerages exist? I suppose (with my ingrained American thinking) I was having a hard time imagining the peerages existing in the Republic of Ireland, with no monarchy. And for the same reason, I'm probably trying to subconsciously tie titles to land more than is valid. I think things like this interest me not so much per se, but more as logic problems.  :-) -TimeLord mbw 20:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Timelordmbw, abolishing the hereditary right to sit in the Lords shows that now a peerage is just a grand name, not tied to anyplace, even if called “of Longford”. Earl Grey isn’t ‘of’ anywhere.

Calling Peerages “of England”, “of Scotland” etc was need to sort out seniority (it 300 years and Elizabeth II has just sorted out seniority of Royal numbers).

Lots of republics have titles of honor. Bill Clinton still gets called “President” but President “of” what? :) garryq 14:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One might also ask the same questions on the Peerage of England, Scotland and Great Britain. These do not really exist any further in the fashion of independent entities, yet the Peerages named for them continue to persist. When these entities were distinct, the peers were indeed peers in distinct kingdoms, but the same cannot be said to remain the case. -- Emsworth 22:14, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'd add that French noble titles do exist, despite that country being a republic, and are protected in the law of France. I believe titles in the Peerage of Ireland have some status in the laws of both the UK and the Republic of Ireland (that is to say, the Republic of Ireland allows its citizens who are peers of Ireland to use that title on their passport, and protects the holders of said titles from imposture), although I'm not sure of the rules in the latter case. This is clearly material which ought to be discussed in the Peerage of Ireland article. I shall check the archives of alt.talk.royalty to see if there's any discussion of this. john 04:12, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's partly why I mentioned it; I had thought perhaps this was covered in an article I hadn't read. Hadn't thought about French nobility. Of course, I know even less about that than the little I know about UK peerages; were they granted in the same way as in the UK, i.e. completely from the top down? Or did French titles precede the French crown? I think that's what I have a hard time figuring out about Ireland; all the Irish peerages devolved from the Irish crown, which was held in the British crown, but now the Irish crown no longer exists, as such, so how do the peerages that sprang from it continue to exist? Whereas with what Lord E. says, the English and Scottish crowns do still exist, even though they have no independent existence from the UK crown. It does make sense that the modern Republic would protect the extant titles of its citizens, too. -TimeLord mbw 06:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

French titles tended to be top down, as well. Basically, in France, they are considered personal property, and are protected like any other personal property. They have intermittently been banned (after the Revolution, I believe, but then restored by Napoleon - or perhaps he only created a new nobility, and the old nobility was restored by Louis XVIII; then again in the 2nd Republic, but restored by Napoleon III. The Third Republic, initially dominated by monarchists, didn't abolish titles when it came in, I think). Other countries that have become republic have officially banned titles - Italy has, I think. Certainly Austria. In Germany, titles became a part of your personal name. Thus, the current Hohenzollern pretender's name is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen, with his last name being "Prinz von Preußen." As to the Irish case, I assume that the treaty creating the Irish Free State made some provision for the Irish peerage. The Irish Free State itself remained, of course, a monarchy, and Ireland didn't officially become a republic until 1949. So, again, I'm not really sure about the specifics of the Irish case, although I'm fairly sure that there's some sort of special arrangement going on in terms of treaties with the UK, and so forth. And of course, the Irish crown does still kind of exist, in the form of the UK's control of Northern Ireland. john 06:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

At any rate, I've posted a query about this on alt.talk.royalty, so hopefully one of the smart people there will explain the situation. john 06:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, the situation seems to be that the Republic doesn't officially recognize Irish peerage titles in any way, but it also makes no effort to restrict their use, or declare them invalid, and generally tolerates all title use. There is, however, no official body, in either Ireland or the UK, that regulates the Irish peerage, which thus seems to continue only by inertia. In theory, the House of Lords would be the body to regulate the Irish peerage, but I don't think it has particularly done so. john 20:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Renouncing a peerage was a device to allow hereditary peers to sit it the UK Commons. Irish peers were not called to the Lords, so could sit in the commons if elected. Frank Pakenham sat in the House of Lords, as Viscount Pakenham, but after his brother’s death in 1961 was referred to as The Earl of Longford as a courtesy. A further confusion, when hereditary peers were denied seats in the Lords Longford automatically received a Life Peerage along with all First Creations of Peers. As they have no constitutional role, the republic simply ignores peers. Disputes about who should be head of the family and call themselves “2nd Lord X” should be sorted out by the family and do not concern the government, as long as someone pays the 1st Lord X’s taxes. It would be interesting to see how an Irish title could be called out of abeyance.:garryq 13:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Calling an Irish peerage out of abeyance would be handled no differently than calling any 'British' title. The Monarch could call it out or they could refer it to the House of Lords for a decision. The standing orders are pretty clear about this [3] Alci12

Spiritual Peers

Several sources describe the Lords Spiritual as "peers," while others assert the opposite. What is the general opinion as to which is correct?

Lords Spiritual ARE peers

• "The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first peer of England ... The Archbishop of York ('Primate of England') is the third peer in the United Kingdom ... Diocesan Bishops of England in the Lords are also peers of the kingdom and of Parliament." (Debrett's)
• The Lords are technically the "House of Peers" (Erskine May; Companion to the Standing Orders and guide to the Proceedings of the Lords)
• "In the case of a diocesan bishop his proper title is the Lord Bishop of A., whether he be a spiritual peer or not." (1997 Britannica)
• "The Bishop, as a spiritual peer, sat in the House of Lords, and no doubt watched over the interests of the county in a general way." (The Constitutional Beginnings of North Carolina by John Spencer Bassett)

Lords Spiritual ARE NOT peers

• "Not every lord, even one with a seat in the House of Lords, is a peer. Bishops, for instance, are spiritual lords." (Burke's)
• "[T]he spiritual lords are not now regarded as peers." (1911 EB "Peerage")

Discussion

You are welcome to offer additional support for either position. -- Emsworth 20:50, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

It might be added that Bishops only feature in the CP if they also hold a hereditary Peerage title. Personally I think they key word is "regarded" in the 1911 EB: someone who is not regarded as a peer must technically be one, otherwise the sentence would not make sense. However, Bishops cease to be Peers when they leave the House. Dbiv 17:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I will add to the article on the presumption that they are peers, but will note that they are not "regarded" by many as peers. -- Emsworth 20:52, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

From Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

"It is said, that this does not extend to bishops; who, though they are lords of parliament, and sit there by virtue of their baronies which they hold jure ecclesiae, yet are not ennobled in blood, and consequently not peers with the nobility."

"THE commonalty, like the nobility, are divided into several degrees; and, as the lords, though different in rank, yet all of them are peers in respect of their nobility, so the commoners though some are greatly superior to others, yet all are in law peers, in respect of their want of nobility."

There seems little in the way of unequivocal statements that bishops are peers by any worthwhile authority. On the contrary, many authorities specifically state that bishops should not be held to be peers. Andrew Yong 23:26, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Blackstone suggests that bishops are not "peers with the nobility." Perhaps they are not equal to the nobility, as they are not ennobled in blood. Still, Debrett's seems to suggest that they are "peers of the kingdom." -- Emsworth 02:36, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Another quotation:

"for though bishops, on account of the baronies annexed to their bishopricks, are clearly lords of parliament, yet, their blood not being ennobled, they are not universally allowed to be peers with the temporal nobility..."

"Universally allowed..." indicates a disputed point, I believe. -- Emsworth 14:19, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, and according to the 1911 EB article on Peerage, which has a great deal on this, there seems to have been a dispute in the reign of Richard II on this issue. The bishops tried to claim both their position outside secular jurisdiction, but maintaining the privileges of peerage. They metaphorically fell between two stools, and eventually ended up with neither.

"The Standing Orders of the House of Lords for 1625 contain the statement that Bishops are only Lords of Parliament and not Peers (Lords Journals, iii. 349). In 1640 the Lords Spiritual were altogether excluded from the House of Lords by act of parliament, and were not brought back until the second year of the Restoration. From that period there has been no question as to their position."

While in early times they claimed immunity from secular trial altogether, he bishops seem never have attempted to claim trial by the Lords and indeed as a rule never participated in the trial of temporal lords, however, at the trial of the seven bishops in 1688 (by common jury), it is taken for granted, bizarrely, that they are peers and have the privilege of petitioning and advising the King.

I think the best thing would be to admit and explain that this is a point of dispute Andrew Yong 17:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very well, I'll add the section soon. -- Emsworth 22:58, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts on spiritual peers: 1) are all diocesan bishops spiritual peers, or only those with seats in the Lords? Are Welsh and Northern Irish bishops in the Church in Wales and the Church of Ireland spiritual peers? Also, it should clarify about the disestablishments of the Welsh and Irish churches. john 20:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Only those with seats in the Lords seem to be peers, and only for the duration of their service in that House. What do you think of the division of the article (which was about 92 KB long)? -- Emsworth 22:00, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Too many external links

This is the same complaint I brought up in the Jew article - there are too many external links. The rule of thumb is that there should be at least one or two, but not more than 10. This article currently has 28. Remember, wikipedia is not a link repository. →Raul654 14:36, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

They aren't just external links, though, they're references from which the article has been written. There is a large number of them due to the immense amount of research that has gone into this article. It's not like someone's just listed 30 pages connected to the Peerage. From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "But of course there's nothing wrong with adding both lists of links and lists of on-line references you used in writing an article." Proteus (Talk) 15:01, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

These sites that have been linked to have all been used in the individual parts of the series. I thought it convenient to locate all of the references centrally. -- Emsworth 17:36, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Peer Usage

I was under the impression that though a Baronet was created to fill the ranks of nobility, it was a peerage title nonetheless? How is it not? Also, the honorific title "The Right Honorble" has appeared before as a salutation. Especially in British parliament, considering it being casually used or not.

Baronet is not a peer. It is just under the lower boundary of peerage = barons. Baronet = little baron. 62.78.120.237 19:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A question of privileges

I've read in several different fantasy books that certain hair styles were common to a certain circumstance - firstborn sons were encouraged to wear their hair longer, certain nobility could use certain birds in falconry, etc. Is there any truth to this, and if so, could yuo direct me to a guide on it?

Basically Gerfalcon = King, Peregrine falcon = Earl, Hawk = Baron & Lanner = SquireAlci12

POV?

If peerageis the system of nobility in the United Kingdom, then there should be no other articles on peerage, such as the Peerage of France...

There needs to be some NPOV cleanup on every single article on aristocratic title in Wikipedia to be non-England centric! Most articles (list articles as well) seem to assume everything is English or part of the UK by default, with footnoting the rest of the world.

Just some thoughts. 132.205.45.148 21:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term "Peerage" is almost always used in the British context. The same applies, for example, to House of Lords; the article concerns the British House, even though there has been an Irish body of the same name. -- Emsworth 21:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

almost is the kicker. There should be a disambiguation page linked off the top. Still, though, the articles on titles need work since they are UK-centric, like Duke was/is, when they should not be. 132.205.45.110 18:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

House of Lords is practically a British thing. However, peerage is a term used of several other countries, such as France. There were pairs de France, and they formed the Peerage of France... 62.78.120.237 19:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael Bush argues convincingly that the British peerage is only the upper segment of a broader British "aristocracy," the lower levels being the baronetcy and the gentry (paralleling the "minor nobilities" on the Continent). He's arguing that the British system is not really all that different, historically, from any other upper class in Europe, differing only in details -- but that those details enabled the survival of the British system where aristocracies on the Continent were swept away in all practical senses by revolutions of the commonality. Anyway, this would make "peerage" a British term and "aristocracy" the broader western term. How does that strike people? --Michael K. Smith 18:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me as confusing. "Aristocracy" had a precise, legal meaning in ancient Greece, but today is a general term for the uppermost, hereditary portion of any country's "upper class". Peerage is a much narrower term. Bush's description of the British peerage's survival as a legal institution through the 20th century because of its flexibility and fluidity is probably an accurate interpretation of its history (though debatable), but it misapprehends and denies the uniqueness of Britain's social class system. Although legally the "nobility" was synonymous with the peerage in the British Isles, in fact the former term has always been colloquially used to refer to those of the immediate family of peers who derived courtesy prefixes (e.g. Lord, Lady, Honourable, Dowager Viscountess, etc) from those kinships. The remoter, untitled descendents of peers who were in line of succession to a peerage, as well as their wives and daughters, were also gentry by dint of "gentle birth", unless they actually performed manual labor to support themselves. Gentry also included baronets, knights, and their wives, by virtue of possession of the prefixes attached to those ranks. But those who lived off the (usually agricultural) proceeds of their property were also considered gentry, even if they had no title nor were in line of succession to any. This last class formed by far the largest sector of the gentry, and because of it the "gentry" may absolutely not be considered the British version of the Continental lower nobility. While the latter shared most of the British gentry's lack of title, they retained possession of the legal status of "nobility" as much as did any duke, count or peer. Whereas any Briton could rise into the gentry by acquiring the means to live "gently", on the Continent one could only be noble by inheritance or grant from a sovereign. In some countries, such as France, Germany, Hungary and Venice, these untitled nobles nonetheless retained privileges at law that were either reserved in Britain for peers, or were not even possessed by members of the House of Lords, e.g. exemption from taxation or eligibility to vote for or be elected national ruler (e.g. Doge). The gentry is unique to the British Isles, and although it functioned and was treated as if it were the British lower nobility, it was far more porous than the noblesse of the rest of Europe, and was legally indistinguishable from the poorest peasant: Being a gentleman in Britain was a way of life, whereas being a noble on the Continent was a matter of birth.Lethiere 06:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

American Princess

The US tv show "American Princess" announced that the winner will be granted a British noble title. Queen Elizabeth II is the only person in UK entitled to grant noble titles. Will Queen grant title or not ? If granted a title, I don't think the winner can use her title since she is not British citizen.

User:Siyac 13:42, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

I have removed the following paragraph added by an anonymous user:

"As the UK does not have a written constitution, Peerage titles are social constructs whose existance are dependent on citizens continued use of them. As the UK continues its transformation towards a meritocracy this tradition is currently dying out, with many 'peers' now referred to by their regular names in the national press and popular parlance. There is no law demanding that the titles must be used."

This passage is somewhat misleading. Firstly, the UK does have a constitution, partly written and partly unwritten; it is merely uncodified. Secondly, the passage implies that Peerages have no recognition in the law/ constitution of the UK, when such is clearly untrue. The uncodified constitution certainly recognises Peerage titles, as evidenced, for instance, by the right to sit in the Lords and by the Privilege of Peerage. Thirdly, it would be inaccurate to state that the UK is becoming a meritocracy. The government does include meritocratic elements, but it is not a meritocracy, nor is it becoming one. Fourthly, the use of quotation marks around the word peers seems to have certain POV implications. Fifthly, "regular names" is not an appropriate term: a peer's title is, in effect, his name. Sixthly, although many peers use so-called "regular names," most do not; the use of "Lord Such-and-Such" is still prevalent. Seventhly, there is no law forcing anyone to use any title, but all official documents, etc., do use them. Hence, the passage in general was quite misleading, leading to my (hopefully correct) decision to remove it. -- Emsworth 20:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sixth rank?

The Scottish "lord of Parliament" isn't really a sixth rank, is it? It's the same rank as the English "baron", is it not? —Ashley Y 01:51, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

FARC?

Someone put that this was a failed FARC. But I can't find any record of the discussion of it there at all. What's the deal? john k 15:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's in the March to July 2004 archive (about half way down). Presumably the template is new and someone's going back through the archives adding it to them all. Proteus (Talk) 15:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Australian 'Politicians'

We seem to have a problem with the Australian articles. User Adam Carr is removing styles [Rt Hon] or medals [VC] from any person who was involved with Australia. He explains this by objecting to "pompous and grovelling... feudal titles" and that "If British or New Zealand or whatever Wikipedians want to clutter up their articles with ugly titles and acronyms, that's their business. Australian users have decided that we don't want them."

This leaves us in the situation that a British peer who serves as Governor General has styles removed. A British peer who serves as a Canadian or New Zealand GG has them left alone. You can find links at Governor-general_of_Australia Oddly the link page has the full styles that are then removed from most/all of the articles. This breaks all consistency across wiki articles. Can anyone suggest how we solve thisAlci12

As an Australian I disagree with Adam Carr. Someone should tell him he lost the referendum. Avalon 01:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct reference to Life Peers

I was not able to find a fully satisfactory answer here under 'Styles and Titles' (nor at Forms of Address in the United Kingdom) to a question about how to refer to Life Peers who have the same name as an existing peer. Let us take the example of the late Lord Dacre of Glanton (Hugh Trevor-Roper). I understand he had to take the additional title 'of Glanton' because there was already a (hereditary?) Lord Dacre. But how should he be written about? Clear it is necessary to speak of 'Lord Dacre of Glanton' at first usage, both out of correctness and in order to distinguish him from the other Dacre. But (and here is the question) does one need to repeat 'of Glanton' thereafter? This might be worth a sentence from someone who knows the correct form.

I've never seen a definitive answer to this question (to which I have often given much thought), and it's not even addressed by works of correct form, let alone answered, but I'd tend to regard "Dacre of Glanton" as an indivisible entity — Lord Dacre of Glanton wasn't someone called Lord Dacre who came from Glanton (which would enable it to be snipped at second reference), he's someone whose title is "Baron Dacre of Glanton", and who definitely isn't Lord Dacre. If he isn't Lord Dacre, it's wrong to call him that, even at second reference. The fact that "of" is a connecting particle doesn't mean it should be treated as such when it's part of a peerage title, as grammatical rules shouldn't apply inside names. After all, it's just a translation of "de", found in some early peerage titles, and no one is going to refer to Lord Willoughby de Broke at second mention as "Lord Willoughby". If my legal name were "John Smith of Wikipedia", then I'd be referred to at second mention as "Mr Smith of Wikipedia", just as Henry Smith de Wikipedia would be called "Mr Smith de Wikipedia" — you couldn't truncate either of our names simply because they had an "of" (or a French version of "of") in them. Why should peerages be any different?

It might sound slightly cumbersome, but that's his fault for choosing that title (I have often suspected that people like Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare and Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon chose their titles for the very reason that no one will ever use the second part). I've never seen any justification provided for the (extremely common) practice of snipping off the "of Y" except cumbersomeness, and there are other British forms of address which provide similar cumbersomeness — Lord Justice John Smith (forced to be such due to the existence of plain Lord Justice Smith) must be (and always would be by decent sections of the media) referred to as such even after first reference: if you don't want to keep writing "Lord Justice John Smith" you have to write "the Lord Justice" or "the judge" or similar.

The situation is of course different for peers with "X and Y" titles, as they can quite correctly be called "Lord X" (and, indeed, if you called the Earl of Cork and Orrery "Lord Cork and Orrery" you'd get rather odd looks). Proteus (Talk) 17:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I know this discussion is ancient, but Proteus seems clearly wrong, unless we talk about the "Curzon of Kedleston Line." (Which we do not, of course). Curzon is always called "Lord Curzon," even though that title properly belongs as the courtesy title of Earl Howe's heir. Given the fact that usage is one way, it is not wikipedia's job to prescribe usage in a different way because we think it is "more correct." john k 23:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone asked what common usage is, but if they had have done then I'm sure your answer would have been useful. (I must admit, I am surprised at you of all people saying "it's common usage and therefore what we should use it". Would you like me to propose a move to Princess Diana, or will you be doing that yourself?) Proteus (Talk) 16:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'm very late, but you were saying that on *second mentions* we couldn't call peers with territorial disambiguators by just "Lord X". By that standard, we should have to refer to Lord Curzon as "Lord Curzon of Kedleston" or "Curzon of Kedleston" at every appearance of his name. This seems clearly wrong. john k 13:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Jacobite Peerage

Just editing Earl of Dundee and someone has added a 'succession' listing to a pretended jacobite peerage of the same name. I haven't done anything as yet but personally don't think Wiki should add entries to non existant titles. It might be appropriate to add a comment that references the supposed creation but nothing more. Thoughts Alci12 16:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus with four in favour and four against. —Nightstallion (?) 08:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

It was proposed on WP:RM that this article be moved from "Peerage" to "British Peerage"; however, the nominator doesn't seem to have bothered putting a notice here or creating a discussion section. In the absence of a proper request and in the absence of a proposal for a new article to be moved to "Peerage", I oppose this request. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a terrible idea. Mackensen (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, it's an excellent idea. The French peerage died out in the 19th century, but had been re-created and re-invigorated several times post-Napoleon as the upper chamber of France's national legislature, exercising substantial power and influence on French history. Prior to the French Revolution, it constituted the most powerful nobles in the realm. It was an important institution, as unique as the British peerage, to which it bore virtually no resemblance. Because its members enjoyed the right of membership in the Parlement of Paris, the French peerage was the closest thing to both a supreme court and legislature in France. Since the British House of Lords is the main article describing the British peerage's current role in the UK, there is no reason why "Peerage" should also be reserved for the British institution.Lethiere 06:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that article is at House of Lords, last I checked. Mackensen (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I can share the concerns of Lethiere that peerage can refer to British as well as French (maybe others? but they would probably be known more as "nobility"). so so far I would tend to support.... Gryffindor 10:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also support, that makes it a 3-2 no consensus... —Nightstallion (?) 11:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I proposed the move, so of course I agree to it. That's a 3-3 tie. I note user Knowledge Seeker opposed the move for purely procedural reasons. So in fact there's a 3-2 vote for the move now... You can check in the history of this article the disambiguation version I proposed for the article peerage and which was reverted by user Mackensen on March 3. Hardouin 12:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't just decide not to count a vote. Proteus (Talk) 13:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. An obvious case of a primary topic. Proteus (Talk) 13:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's clear this up a bit.

For: Lethiere, Gryffindor, Nightstallion, Hardouin (4)

Against: Knowledgeseeker, Mackensen, Proteus (3)

Still a no consensus, 4-3 this time. (To clarify, I meant "3 for, 2 against" with "3-2 no consensus" above.) What now? —Nightstallion (?) 15:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You need a consensus to move it. Proteus (Talk) 15:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd also note I reverted the move because it was a cut-and-paste job. Mackensen (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course we need consensus. The question is whether it's important enough to start a long discussion about it, likely resulting in mediation in the end, or not. —Nightstallion (?) 20:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The term "Peerage" almost always refers to the British system, just as "House of Lords" almost always refers to the British house. -- Emsworth.

I'm relatively indifferent here. If we had a great article ready that discussed all the various other peerages (the only ones I can think of are the Spanish and the French), that'd be one thing, but we don't, and, as others have noted, the British Peerage is the most predominant. I will note that we ought a) to have disambiguation links at the top of Peerage to the articles on the other peerages; and b) to create an article on the Spanish peerage, as none presently exists. john k 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to Hardouin, what you call “procedural reasons” are excellent reasons to not perform a move. For instance, proposing a move on WP:RM without going through the proper steps means that people who otherwise would vote might not if the appropriate sections were not created. The more serious flaw, though, is the lack of a proposed article that would be placed here at “Peerage” if this article were to be moved. That alone is a strong reason to leave this article here. In response to Nightstallion, Proteus’s comment about consensus was referring to that if no consensus is achieved, an article is not moved. If there were four people in favor and three opposed, you would need around 8 more people to support and no new opposers to reach the usual threshold for moving. I can’t see why long discussions would result, nor why mediation would be necessary. This time at least, this proposal will likely fail. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker, FYI there is already a proposed replacement article that would be placed here at “Peerage” if this article were to be moved. You can see this replacement article in the history page of Peerage article, deleted on March 3 by user Mackensen. To be frank, I find it rather nationalistic and ignorant to devote the Peerage article only to the British peerage, as if other European peerages did not exist. It's a bit as if the Wine article was devoted only to French wine. Hardouin 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish you'd stop this business about deleting the article. Your cut-and-paste move of this article would have destroyed the edit history, which would have been a disaster. Mackensen (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The analogy with wine is, with all due respect, a very weak one. A more apt comparison might involve Rome. There are several cities named Rome in the whole world, yet the article Rome relates to the city in Italy. Is this practice nationalistic or ignorant? Or does it merely recognize the fact that the word "Rome" primarily refers to the city in Italy?

The official policy is, "When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top." ([4]).

The first test is that the majority of links in existing articles must refer to the British Peerage. A brief look at the "What links here" page indicates that this is overwhelmingly the case. I would judge that over 95% of the links to Peerage refer to the British institution alone.

The second test is whether there is a consensus among the editors of the article. This would certainly appear to be the case; those who have contributed extensively seem to agree. -- Emsworth

Emsworth, the Rome comparison seems deeply invalid. Rome is, by far, the most important city called Rome in the world by any objective standard - it is the largest city of that name, the most historically significant, and the city for which all the other "Romes" are named; and it is a national capital. This does not apply to the peerage issue. There are a number of peerages and while, as English speakers, the various British ones obviously are discussed the most, I am uncertain in what way the French and Spanish peerages can be considered objectively less important in the way that Rome, Georgia is objectively less important than the city of the same name in Italy. I'm also highly uncomfortable with the idea that wikipedia usage can be considered an authority for what wikipedia usage should be - this is circular. As I said above, I'd definitely lean towards the "leave things as they are" department. But I do think there is a degree of national bias to the current way of things, and that we ought to give some consideration to the idea of developing a broader article on the peerage in general to go at peerage, which would, I think, be a significant addition to wikipedia. I'd suggest that a draft page be created to develop a real article (not a disambiguation page) which discusses the institution of the peerage as it developed in multiple European countries (including Britain). I do think that the existence of Peerage as a very well-developed article only discussing the British Peerage does tend to discourage work on broader issues of peerage, which would be a good thing. john k 23:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. All the Romes of the world are named after Rome, Italy, but the British Peerage is named after the French Peerage (pairage in Old French), not the other way around. I also note that in the French speaking world, people have no clue that there is a British Peerage (except, maybe, in French Canada). Ask anyone in France, Belgium, Cameroon, or French Polynesia, educated people know about the French Peerage, but they'd be suprised to hear that the word peerage is also used for the British nobility. If you think the peerage is not an important issue in France, just check Le Colonel Chabert, written by Balzac in 1844. They made a French movie out of it, in 1994, with Gérard Depardieu playing the role of Coronel Chabert. During the Bourbon's restoration of monarchy, Count Ferraud, who married the widow of Coronel Chabert, thought dead during the Battle of Eylau but in fact still alive, wishes to nullify his marriage (divorce is not legal) in order to marry a higher-status woman, which would pave the way to the French Peerage, over which he is literally obsessing. "Peerage, peerage, there's only this word in your mouth" says his wife at some point. Hardouin 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is shaping up to be a clear no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 08:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.