Talk:Life peer

Miscellaneous

There is a page List of life peers and a List of Life Peerages. Is this a duplicate entry? FZ 00:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It appears so. -- Emsworth 01:54, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Is there a nationality requirement to become a life peer? JAJ 23:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should be moved to Life Peer (capital P). Haakon 14:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There was mention of Liz Truss granting 30 life peerages in a footnote for her table entry, but the table itself says she granted only 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelinius (talk • contribs) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

People's Peers

Since People's Peer redirects to this article, the article should explain what a People's Peer is. Ben Finn 16:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Surname

How can someone be created as the Baron of McDonald, say, if this surname is a patronymic, i.e. son of Donald, whereas Emmington is a toponymic and a real place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.197.214 (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

They wouldn't be Baron of McDonald, they'd be Baron McDonald, and there have been peerages named for surnames for absolutely ages, and these days all life baronies involve the surname. In fact, these days, the most common surnames have been used, and, so as not to duplicate a living peerage, they become Lord X of Y, i.e. Baron McDonald of Emmington to differentiate! DBD 19:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

All life baronies do not involve the surname, a fairly steady stream use a place. For two recent examples Paul Channon, Baron Kelvedon 1997, John David Taylor, Baron Kilclooney 2001. Also the form X of Y, for LPs, is now used irrespective of whether a holder of X is living - obviously provided a form X previously existed.. AllsoulsDay (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing lead

The first paragraph seems to say: "A Life peer is a peer whose title can not be inherited. Legitimate children of life peers inherit their titles." Isn't this a direct contradiction? Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Armstrong-Jones

Quoth the article:

"Life peerages may in certain cases be awarded to hereditary peers. After the House of Lords Act 1999 passed, many hereditary peers of the first creation, who had not inherited their titles but would still be excluded from the House of Lords by the Act, were created life peers, including ... Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon. None of the peers of the first creation who were members of the Royal Family was granted a life peerage."

While Armstrong-Jones is no longer a member of the royal family, he was when he was granted his Earldom (he was married to Queen Elizabeth's sister), so surely this is contradictory? --Jfruh (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Averages of peerages created

I've added a yearly average for Conservatives and Labour to the article as well as relative and absolute percentages, I'm pretty sure that this isn't OR as I've not added any new data directly, but just done the maths on the data from the table that's already been added to the article. I think the information helps as it was something I would have expected to be in that section of the article, but I would welcome anyone re-wording it if it appears unclear in any way. MattUK (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

MattUK, the yearly averages were already in the article, two paragraphs above the one you added. The percentages you added are not notable enough to be included IMO. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

North Korea???

There is something in this article about North Korea that is clearly out of place. I did not change it because I don't know what should be there, in its place. 209.150.226.122 (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Life peer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110523143102/http://uk.news.yahoo.com/epolitix/20080715/tpl-former-lords-leader-honoured-with-aw-0a1c1a1.html to http://uk.news.yahoo.com/epolitix/20080715/tpl-former-lords-leader-honoured-with-aw-0a1c1a1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Life 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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburgh

When the information becomes available, this article should be updated to explain how the recent creation of Prince Edward as Duke of Edinburgh "for His Royal Highness's lifetime" relates to life peerages. Guessing it doesn't fall under the Life Peerages Act but it remains to be seen whether sources will refer to this creation as a "life peer" or "life dukedom". Ibadibam (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm very curious about the legal aspects of this creation. The Life Peerages Act specifically says that peerages created under its provisions are barons. If the sovereign can create life peerages of any rank outside the provisions of the law, why was the law necessary in the first place? --Jfruh (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same. Only thing I can readily see is that those created under the act also have the right to membership in the House of Lords, while this creation does not give him that right. Gecko G (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a wealth of precedent for this. It is not a legal curiosity at all (apart from being rare). See List of life peerages before 1876 and Life peer#Before 1887.GSTQ (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

And Peerage law#Wensleydale Peerage Case (1856)GSTQ (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I have read all that material, and what I suspect from reading it is that the key question historically has been not whether the King can create a life peerage but whether someone with a peerage of that type can sit in the House of Lords; all of the life peerages created after Henry VIII up until the Appellate Jurisdiction Act were for women, who couldn't sit in the Lords even if they held a hereditary peerage, and as near as I can tell was the question of sitting in the Lords, not the peerage itself, that was at stake in the Wensleydale Peerage Case. But because before 1999 the two questions were intimately tied together, that's not really made explicit anywhere, and it's sort of taken for granted that granting a title provides a seat in the Lords (and that getting someone into the Lords requires giving them a title). I'm assuming that since the House of Lords Act 1999 this is no longer the case, which frees up the King's hand to create non-Barony life peerages as he pleases (indeed, doing so specifically allows him to make Edward a Duke without giving him an even theoretical seat in the Lords, since the Life Peerages act only allows life Barons to sit).

It would be nice if we could find some external reference that lays all this out. I would argue that, since this is the first life peerage created since 1958 that wasn't intended to give someone a seat in the House of Lords under the Appellate Jurisdiction or Life Peerage Acts, as well as the first not created under the terms of either of those laws created for a man since the reign of Henry VIII, it does, in fact, represent a legal curiosity. --Jfruh (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburgh is not a life peerage. The crown can impose any limitations he or she likes in the letters patent. For example, the Dukedom of Cornwall uniquely passes to the heir if the current duke accedes to the throne instead of merging with the crown and becoming extinct as is the norm. 51.7.148.50 (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article is "In the United Kingdom, life peers are appointed members of the peerage whose titles cannot be inherited." Does that not describe the current creation of the Duke of Edinburgh? Do you think this sentence is incorrect or incomplete? This article covers peerages created for life over the whole course of British history, not just the ones created under the terms of the Life Peerages or Appellate Jurisdiction acts. Jfruh (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No it does not. A Dukedom in not a peerage. 51.7.148.50 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an intriguing theory, but it seems quite at odds with the Peerages in the United Kingdom article and template, both of which contain extensive information on dukedoms. --Jfruh (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I will also note that the first sentence of the Dukes in the United Kingdom article is "Duke, in the United Kingdom, is the highest-ranking hereditary title in all five peerages of the British Isles". If a Dukedom is not a peerage, our entire set of pages on British peerages need rewrites, so I think you should provide some evidence for this fact beyond just asserting it if you want to proceed. Jfruh (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Life peer:Duke of edinburgh

Hi content added on the life peerage given to duke of Edinburgh was challenged as breaching wp:sps. Two points: 1) the blog cited is a very long running, expert and thoroughly robust site. Wp:sps allows content from these sources in this context (just to be clear i have no connection to the blog). 2) it would as always be good to find wider citations for this new para. The life peerage given to the Duke of Edinburgh was widely reported (and I think the flag added recently to the top of the article calling for updates based on recent developments was referencing the award of this life dukedom). I will look for another good source to cite, be good if others did the same, certainly not helpful just to delete the info. Thanks. Atrapalhado (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPS only allows the use of self-published sources when those sources are written "by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Note also, "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." DrKay (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi I have added a Daily Telegraph reference. I am leaving the blog cited (have you looked at it?) as it is very detailed and itself extensively referenced. I would make the point that as this is a relatively new development (March), commentary is bound to less written up, eg in academic or legal literature.

I'd also make the criticism that its very frustrating when Wikipedia editors just delete chunks of what is obviously sensible text instead of using tags or talk page comments where they feel things need to be better referenced. We have few enough people providing substantive new material for wikipedia and its depressing that some people just like to take the big red pen out at the earliest opportunity. Atrapalhado (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That comment just demonstrates your ignorance of my edits. If you think an editor can write 40 featured articles by just taking "the big red pen out at the earliest opportunity" then you're a fool. DrKay (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Friend im not interested in your featured articles. I'm interested in you treating other people's contributions with respect. Do you actually think the text I've written is wrong? If you think better citations are needed then say that with a tag or a talk page comment. Dont just be big red pen guy. Atrapalhado (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It is hypocritical to talk of respect when you give none. DrKay (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)