
The Peerage is a system of titles of nobility which exists in the United Kingdom and is one part of the British honours system. The term can be used to refer to the entire body of titles in a collective sense, or to a specific title. All British honours, including peerage dignities, spring from the monarch, who is considered the fount of honour. The Sovereign him or herself cannot belong to the Peerage as "the fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself" (opinion of the House of Lords in the ''Buckhurst Peerage Case''). If one is neither a peer nor the Sovereign, then one is a commoner. Members of a peer's family are also commoners; the British system thus fundamentally differs from the continental European one, where entire families, rather than individuals, were ennobled. Even members of the Royal Family who do not hold peerage dignities are considered commoners. ==Divisions of the Peerage== There are various parts to the Peerage which convey slightly different benefits: the Peerage of England pertains to all titles created by the Kings and Queens of England prior to the Act of Union 1707 in 1707. The Peerage of Scotland, similarly, pertains to all titles created by the Kings and Queens of Scotland before 1707. The Peerage of Ireland includes titles created for the Kingdom of Ireland before the Act of Union 1800 of 1801, and some titles created after that year, whilst the Peerage of Great Britain pertains to titles created for the Kingdom of Great Britain between 1707 and 1801. Finally, the Peerage of the United Kingdom pertains to most titles created since 1801. After the Union with Scotland, it was provided that the Scottish peers would not all sit in the House of Lords; rather, they would elect sixteen representative peers. After the Union of 1801, similarly, Ireland was allowed to elect twenty-eight representative peers. Irish elections ceased in 1922, when the Irish Free State became a separate country. Scottish elections ceased in 1963, when all Scottish peers were granted the right to sit in the House of Lords. Members of the Peerages of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom all attended the House of Lords, and no elections were necessary. ==Ranks== Peers are of five ranks: duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron. A sixth rank, that of lord of Parliament, is unique to Scotland, where "barons" are not peers, but holders of feudal dignities. Baronets, while holders of a hereditary title, are not peers. The word "duke" traces its origin to the Latin word ''dux'', meaning leader. "Marquess" comes from the Germanic word "Mark" (for "border"), referring to the border ("marches") between England and either Wales or Scotland; the relationship is more evident in the feminine form, Marchioness. The term "earl" derives from the Old Norse ''jarl'', meaning warrior or nobleman. There being no Norse feminine equivalent for the term, the word "countess" is used, which itself derives from the Latin ''comes'', or "Count" (the equivalent of an earl in continental Europe). Similarly, the term "viscount" comes from the Latin ''vicecomes'', or vice-count. Finally, "baron" comes ultimately from the Old Germanic ''Baro'', meaning freeman. The various titles are in the form of ''Rank Name'' or ''Rank of Name''. The name of the title can either be a place name or a surname. The precise usage depends on the rank of the peerage and on certain other general considerations. Dukes always use ''of''. Marquesses and earls whose titles are based on place names normally use ''of'', while those whose titles are based on surnames normally do not. Viscounts, barons and lords of Parliament do not use ''of''. However, there are several exceptions to the rule. For instance, Scottish viscomitial titles theoretically include ''of'', though in practice, it is most often dropped. (Thus, the "Viscount of Falkland" is commonly known as "Viscount Falkland.") Also, ''of'' is normally not used when the place in question is outside British territory, as using ''of'' might imply that the nation has sovereignty over such a place. For instance, the title ''Marquess Douro'' is based on the River Douro in Portugal, over which the British monarch has neither sovereignty nor suzerainty. Often, a territorial designation is added to the main peerage title, especially in the case of barons and viscounts: for instance, ''Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven, County Lincoln'' or ''Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, of Hindhead, County Surrey''. In such cases, any designation following the first comma generally does not form a part of the main title and is dropped, leaving, in the aforementioned cases, ''Baroness Thatcher'' and ''Viscount Montgomery of Alamein''. Territorial designations in titles are not updated with local government in the United Kingdom reforms, but new creations do take them into account. Thus there is a ''Baroness Airey, of Abingdon, England in the Oxfordshire'', and a ''Baron Johnston of Rockport, of Caversham in the Berkshire''. It was once the case that a peer administered the place associated with his title. However, such has not been true since the Middle Ages. The only remaining peerage with associated lands controlled by the holder is the Duke of Cornwall, which is associated with the Dukedom of Cornwall, a dukedom held by the eldest son and heir to the Sovereign. ==Hereditary peers== ''Main article: Hereditary peer'' An hereditary peer is a peer whose dignity may be inherited. Hereditary peerage dignities may be created by the Sovereign with writs of summons or by letters patent, the former method now being obsolete. Writs of summons summon an individual to Parliament, in the old feudal tradition, and merely ''imply'' the existence or creation of an hereditary peerage dignity, which is automatically inherited, presumably according to the traditional mediæval rules (male-preference primogeniture, similar to the succession of British crown). Letters patent, however, explicitly create a dignity and specify its course of inheritance (usually agnatic succession, like the Salic Law). Once created, a peerage dignity continues to exist as long as there are surviving descendants of the first holder. Once the heirs of the original peer die out, the peerage dignity is said to have become ''extinct''. In former times, peerage dignities were often ''forfeit'' by Acts of Parliament, usually when peers were found guilty of treason. Often, however, the felonious peer's descendants successfully petitioned the Sovereign to restore the dignity to the family. Some dignities, such as the Duke of Norfolk, have been forfeit and restored several times. It is now also possible for an individual to ''disclaim'' his own peerage dignity within one year of inheriting it under the Peerage Act 1963. The Sovereign is incapable of holding a peerage dignity; when the holder of a peerage succeeds to the Crown, the dignity ''merges in the Crown'' and ceases to exist. Hereditary peers were all once entitled to sit in the House of Lords, subject only to qualifications such as age and citizenship. (Scottish and Irish peers, as noted above, were not automatically entitled to seats.) Under the House of Lords Act 1999, however, hereditary peers lost their automatic right to sit in the Upper House. The Act did provide that ninety-two hereditary peers—those exercising the offices of Lord Great Chamberlain and Earl Marshal, as well as ninety hereditary peers elected by other peers—could remain in the House of Lords in the interim. ==Life peers== ''Main article: Life peer'' Two acts—the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 and the Life Peerages Act 1958—authorise the regular creation of life peerages. Life peers created under both acts are of baronial rank. They are always created under letters patent, and not by writs of summons. While succession to hereditary peerage dignities is mostly restricted to males, many women hold life peerage dignities. Life peers created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act are known as "lords of Appeal in Ordinary." They perform the judicial functions of the House of Lords and serve on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They remain peers for life, but cease to receive judicial salaries at the age of seventy-five. At most, there may be twelve Lords of Appeal in Ordinary under the age of seventy-five at one time. Under the Life Peerages Act, however, there is no limit on the number of peerages the Sovereign may create. Unlike lords of Appeal, such peers have no judicial duties. Normally, life peerages are granted to individuals nominated by the various political parties or by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Furthermore, they are normally granted to honour important government figures—such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—upon their retirement. ==Styles and titles== ''Main articles: Forms of Address in the United Kingdom; Courtesy title'' Peers and peeresses are entitled to certain styles and titles. Dukes use ''His Grace'', Marquesses use ''The Most Honourable'' and other peers (whether hereditary or for life) use ''The Right Honourable''. Peeresses (whether they hold peerages in their own right or are wives of peers) use equivalent styles. In speech, any peer or peeress except a duke or duchess is referred to as ''Lord X'' or ''Lady X''. (For instance, the Earl of Derby is known as Lord Derby.) Confusion is possible here, for though the wife of an Earl and a ''suo jure'' Countess (that is, one holding the dignity in her own right) are both officially titled ''Countess'' and are known in speech as ''Lady'', the wife of a Baron is officially titled ''Lady'', while a woman holding that rank in her own right (usually a life peeress) is offically titled ''Baroness'' but is also commonly referred to in speech as ''Lady''. Hence, Margaret Thatcher, a ''suo jure'' life peeress, may be correctly referred to as either "Baroness Thatcher" or "Lady Thatcher". "Baroness" is not used for female holders of Scottish lordships of Parliament; for example, Flora Fraser, 21st Lady Saltoun is known as "Lady Saltoun" as opposed to "Baroness Saltoun." Children of peers also use special titles called courtesy titles. The eldest son of a duke, a marquess or an earl may generally use his father's second-highest peerage dignity as his own. Hence, the Duke of Devonshire's son is called Marquess of Hartington. An eldest son who uses his father's second-highest title is called a ''courtesy peer'', and does not normally sit in the House of Lords or enjoy any privileges associated with the Peerage. In law, courtesy peers remain commoners. The daughters and younger sons of dukes and marquesses prefix ''Lord'' or ''Lady'' to their first names. These terms are also known as courtesy titles. All children of viscounts, barons and lords of Parliament use ''The Honourable''. Children of earls do not use equivalent styles; daughters of earls use ''Lady'', but younger sons of earls use ''The Honourable''. Thus, individuals who use the style ''Lord'' or ''Lady'' are not necessarily peers, but it is usually possible to distinguish them by a knowledge of which subsidiary hereditary titles (such as "Marquess of Hartington") are in use and by a proper observation of whether ''Lord'' or ''Lady'' are used with or without the first name. The younger son of a duke, such as Lord Randolph Churchill, is addressed as "Lord Randolph" - "Lord Churchill" or "Mr. Churchill" would both be incorrect. But a ''suo jure'' peer is referred to by his peerage even if it is the same as his surname. Thus David Owen is correctly referred to as "Lord Owen". It is incorrect to call him "Lord David Owen", though such incorrect forms are very commonly used. A quasi-exception to this comes with life peers with common surnames who choose to combine their first and last names in their peerage title. Thus George Brown, Baron George-Brown was ennobled as ''Baron George-Brown''. Some peers, particularly life peers who were well-known before their ennoblement, do not use their peerage titles at all in authorial bylines or other ordinary usage, but go by their proper names. Others use a combination: thus the author John Julius Norwich is actually named John Julius Cooper and is the second Viscount Norwich. ==Privilege of Peerage== ''Main article: Privilege of Peerage'' The Privilege of Peerage is the body of privileges that belongs to peers, their wives and their unremarried widows. While the Privilege of Peerage was once extensive, only three privileges survived into the twentieth century. Peers had the right to be tried by fellow peers in the Lord High Steward's Court and in the House of Lords; this privilege was abolished in 1948. Peers have the right to personally access the Sovereign, but this privilege has long been obsolete. Finally, peers have the right to be exempt from arrest except for breach of the peace, felony or treason. This privilege has only been used twice since 1945. Peers enjoy several rights that do not formally form a part of the Privilege of the Peerage. For instance, peers and their families have positions in the order of precedence. Peers and peeresses wear special coronets at coronations of Sovereigns; depictions of these coronets also appear atop peers' heraldry. They have distinctive robes for use at coronations and in the House of Lords. ==History== ''Main article: History of the Peerage'' When William I of England conquered England, he divided the nation into many "manors", the owners of which came to be known as barons; those who held many manors were known as "greater barons", while those with fewer manors were the "lesser barons". When Kings summoned their barons to Royal Councils, the lesser barons were summoned through sheriffs, while the greater barons were summoned individually by the Sovereign. In 1254, the lesser barons ceased to be summoned; the body of greater barons, meanwhile, evolved into the House of Lords. Since the Crown was itself an hereditary dignity, it seemed natural for seats in the upper House of Parliament to be so as well. By the beginning of the fourteenth century, the hereditary characteristics of the Peerage were well developed. The ranks of baron and earl date to feudal, and perhaps Anglo-Saxon, times. The ranks of duke and marquess were introduced in the fourteenth century, and that of viscount in the fifteenth century. While life peerages were often created in the early days of the Peerage, their regular creation was not provided for under an Act of Parliament until 1876, with the passage of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. ==See also== *Aristocracy *House of Lords *Landed gentry *List of Dukedoms *List of Marquessates *List of Earldoms *List of Viscountcies *List of Baronies *List of Life Peerages (Life Peerages Act, 1958) *List of Law Life Peerages (Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876) *List of Irish representative peers *List of spiritual peers *Upper class ==References== *[http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/ Blackstone, W. (1765). ''Commentaries on the Laws of England''. Oxford: Clarendon Press.] *[http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Peerage_Law.htm Cox, N. (1997). "The British Peerage: The Legal Standing of the Peerage and Baronetage in the overseas realms of the Crown with particular reference to New Zealand." New Zealand Universities Law Review. (Vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 379–401).] *[http://home.freeuk.com/don-aitken/emayvols.html Farnborough, T. E. May, 1st Baron. (1896). Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George the Third, 11th ed. London: Longmans, Green and Co.] *"Peerage." (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed. London: Cambridge University Press. *[http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/peer63.htm Peerage Act 1963. (1963 c. 48). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.] 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! User: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. User:John Kenney 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 User: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: [http://laura.chinet.com/html/titles02.html]. -- User:Lord Emsworth 22:36, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC) P.S. It is probably "of Douro," as that style is used by Britannica: [http://search.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=115708&tocid=30136&query=duke%20nukem&ct=]. -- User: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. User: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... User:John Kenney 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. User:Garryq 12:11, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) == images? == Does anybody have images of the peers' coronets or robes? -- User:Lord 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. User: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, User: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? User: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. -- User:Lord 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? User:Mintguy User talk: Mintguy 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? User:Marnanel 06:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) Typo, I think. User:John Kenney 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? -User: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. User:John Kenney 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. :-) -User: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? :) User: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. -- User:Lord 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. User:John Kenney 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. -User: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. User:John Kenney 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. User:John Kenney 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. User:John Kenney 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.:User:Garryq 13:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==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." ([http://www.debretts.co.uk/peerage_and_baronetage/lords_spiritual.html Debrett's]) *The Lords are technically the "House of Peers" ([http://home.freeuk.com/don-aitken/emay299.html Erskine May]; [http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldcomp/ctso55.htm 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." ([http://www.pinetreeweb.com/bp-peerage.htm 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." ([http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/bassettnc/bassettnc.html ''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." ([http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page66-lord.asp Burke's]) *"[T]he spiritual lords are not now regarded as peers." ([http://7.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PE/PEERAGE.htm 1911 EB "Peerage"]) ===Discussion=== You are welcome to offer additional support for either position. -- User:Lord 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. User: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. -- User:Lord 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. User: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." -- User:Lord 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. -- User:Lord 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 User:Andrew Yong 17:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::Very well, I'll add the section soon. -- User:Lord 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. User:John Kenney 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)? -- User:Lord 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:What Wikipedia is not. User: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." User:Proteus User_talk:Proteus 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. -- User:Lord 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. User: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? == POV? == If ''peerage''is 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. User: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. -- User:Lord 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. User: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... User:62.78.120.237 19:55, 30 Apr 2005 (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. -- User:Lord 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? —User:Ashley Y 01:51, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
{| cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" class="toccolours" style="float:right; font-size: 95%; margin:0 0 1em 1em;" |style="border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa"|This article is part of the series
Peerage
|-
|Hereditary peer
Life peer
Representative peer |- |style="border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa"|Privilege of Peerage
History of the Peerage |}
#redirect Template:Peerage
Also including baronetcies, which are not peerages. Titles British monarchy Nobility by nation
Maybe this ''shouldn't'' include baronetcies. —User:Ashley Y 10:50, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Peerage:
Peerage
Peerage
Peerage
Peerage
Peerage
Peerage
Peerages
Peerages_of_the_United_Kingdom
Peerage_Act,_1963
Peerage_Act_1963
Peerage_Act_1963
Peerage_by_surname
Peerage_cases
Peerage_dignities
Peerage_law
Peerage_of_England
Peerage_of_England
Peerage_of_France
Peerage_of_France
Peerage_of_Great_Britain
Peerage_of_Great_Britain
Peerage_of_Ireland
Peerage_of_Ireland
Peerage_of_Scotland
Peerage_of_Scotland
Peerage_of_the_U.K.
Peerage_of_the_UK
Peerage_of_the_United_Kingdom
Peerage_of_the_United_Kingdom
Peerage
The Peerage is a system of titles of nobility which exists in the United Kingdom and is one part of the British honours system. The term can be used to refer to the entire body of titles in a collective sense, or to a specific title. All British honours, including peerage dignities, spring from the monarch, who is considered the fount of honour. The Sovereign him or herself cannot belong to the Peerage as "the fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself" (opinion of the House of Lords in the ''Buckhurst Peerage Case''). If one is neither a peer nor the Sovereign, then one is a commoner. Members of a peer's family are also commoners; the British system thus fundamentally differs from the continental European one, where entire families, rather than individuals, were ennobled. Even members of the Royal Family who do not hold peerage dignities are considered commoners. ==Divisions of the Peerage== There are various parts to the Peerage which convey slightly different benefits: the Peerage of England pertains to all titles created by the Kings and Queens of England prior to the Act of Union 1707 in 1707. The Peerage of Scotland, similarly, pertains to all titles created by the Kings and Queens of Scotland before 1707. The Peerage of Ireland includes titles created for the Kingdom of Ireland before the Act of Union 1800 of 1801, and some titles created after that year, whilst the Peerage of Great Britain pertains to titles created for the Kingdom of Great Britain between 1707 and 1801. Finally, the Peerage of the United Kingdom pertains to most titles created since 1801. After the Union with Scotland, it was provided that the Scottish peers would not all sit in the House of Lords; rather, they would elect sixteen representative peers. After the Union of 1801, similarly, Ireland was allowed to elect twenty-eight representative peers. Irish elections ceased in 1922, when the Irish Free State became a separate country. Scottish elections ceased in 1963, when all Scottish peers were granted the right to sit in the House of Lords. Members of the Peerages of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom all attended the House of Lords, and no elections were necessary. ==Ranks== Peers are of five ranks: duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron. A sixth rank, that of lord of Parliament, is unique to Scotland, where "barons" are not peers, but holders of feudal dignities. Baronets, while holders of a hereditary title, are not peers. The word "duke" traces its origin to the Latin word ''dux'', meaning leader. "Marquess" comes from the Germanic word "Mark" (for "border"), referring to the border ("marches") between England and either Wales or Scotland; the relationship is more evident in the feminine form, Marchioness. The term "earl" derives from the Old Norse ''jarl'', meaning warrior or nobleman. There being no Norse feminine equivalent for the term, the word "countess" is used, which itself derives from the Latin ''comes'', or "Count" (the equivalent of an earl in continental Europe). Similarly, the term "viscount" comes from the Latin ''vicecomes'', or vice-count. Finally, "baron" comes ultimately from the Old Germanic ''Baro'', meaning freeman. The various titles are in the form of ''Rank Name'' or ''Rank of Name''. The name of the title can either be a place name or a surname. The precise usage depends on the rank of the peerage and on certain other general considerations. Dukes always use ''of''. Marquesses and earls whose titles are based on place names normally use ''of'', while those whose titles are based on surnames normally do not. Viscounts, barons and lords of Parliament do not use ''of''. However, there are several exceptions to the rule. For instance, Scottish viscomitial titles theoretically include ''of'', though in practice, it is most often dropped. (Thus, the "Viscount of Falkland" is commonly known as "Viscount Falkland.") Also, ''of'' is normally not used when the place in question is outside British territory, as using ''of'' might imply that the nation has sovereignty over such a place. For instance, the title ''Marquess Douro'' is based on the River Douro in Portugal, over which the British monarch has neither sovereignty nor suzerainty. Often, a territorial designation is added to the main peerage title, especially in the case of barons and viscounts: for instance, ''Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven, County Lincoln'' or ''Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, of Hindhead, County Surrey''. In such cases, any designation following the first comma generally does not form a part of the main title and is dropped, leaving, in the aforementioned cases, ''Baroness Thatcher'' and ''Viscount Montgomery of Alamein''. Territorial designations in titles are not updated with local government in the United Kingdom reforms, but new creations do take them into account. Thus there is a ''Baroness Airey, of Abingdon, England in the Oxfordshire'', and a ''Baron Johnston of Rockport, of Caversham in the Berkshire''. It was once the case that a peer administered the place associated with his title. However, such has not been true since the Middle Ages. The only remaining peerage with associated lands controlled by the holder is the Duke of Cornwall, which is associated with the Dukedom of Cornwall, a dukedom held by the eldest son and heir to the Sovereign. ==Hereditary peers== ''Main article: Hereditary peer'' An hereditary peer is a peer whose dignity may be inherited. Hereditary peerage dignities may be created by the Sovereign with writs of summons or by letters patent, the former method now being obsolete. Writs of summons summon an individual to Parliament, in the old feudal tradition, and merely ''imply'' the existence or creation of an hereditary peerage dignity, which is automatically inherited, presumably according to the traditional mediæval rules (male-preference primogeniture, similar to the succession of British crown). Letters patent, however, explicitly create a dignity and specify its course of inheritance (usually agnatic succession, like the Salic Law). Once created, a peerage dignity continues to exist as long as there are surviving descendants of the first holder. Once the heirs of the original peer die out, the peerage dignity is said to have become ''extinct''. In former times, peerage dignities were often ''forfeit'' by Acts of Parliament, usually when peers were found guilty of treason. Often, however, the felonious peer's descendants successfully petitioned the Sovereign to restore the dignity to the family. Some dignities, such as the Duke of Norfolk, have been forfeit and restored several times. It is now also possible for an individual to ''disclaim'' his own peerage dignity within one year of inheriting it under the Peerage Act 1963. The Sovereign is incapable of holding a peerage dignity; when the holder of a peerage succeeds to the Crown, the dignity ''merges in the Crown'' and ceases to exist. Hereditary peers were all once entitled to sit in the House of Lords, subject only to qualifications such as age and citizenship. (Scottish and Irish peers, as noted above, were not automatically entitled to seats.) Under the House of Lords Act 1999, however, hereditary peers lost their automatic right to sit in the Upper House. The Act did provide that ninety-two hereditary peers—those exercising the offices of Lord Great Chamberlain and Earl Marshal, as well as ninety hereditary peers elected by other peers—could remain in the House of Lords in the interim. ==Life peers== ''Main article: Life peer'' Two acts—the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 and the Life Peerages Act 1958—authorise the regular creation of life peerages. Life peers created under both acts are of baronial rank. They are always created under letters patent, and not by writs of summons. While succession to hereditary peerage dignities is mostly restricted to males, many women hold life peerage dignities. Life peers created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act are known as "lords of Appeal in Ordinary." They perform the judicial functions of the House of Lords and serve on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They remain peers for life, but cease to receive judicial salaries at the age of seventy-five. At most, there may be twelve Lords of Appeal in Ordinary under the age of seventy-five at one time. Under the Life Peerages Act, however, there is no limit on the number of peerages the Sovereign may create. Unlike lords of Appeal, such peers have no judicial duties. Normally, life peerages are granted to individuals nominated by the various political parties or by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Furthermore, they are normally granted to honour important government figures—such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—upon their retirement. ==Styles and titles== ''Main articles: Forms of Address in the United Kingdom; Courtesy title'' Peers and peeresses are entitled to certain styles and titles. Dukes use ''His Grace'', Marquesses use ''The Most Honourable'' and other peers (whether hereditary or for life) use ''The Right Honourable''. Peeresses (whether they hold peerages in their own right or are wives of peers) use equivalent styles. In speech, any peer or peeress except a duke or duchess is referred to as ''Lord X'' or ''Lady X''. (For instance, the Earl of Derby is known as Lord Derby.) Confusion is possible here, for though the wife of an Earl and a ''suo jure'' Countess (that is, one holding the dignity in her own right) are both officially titled ''Countess'' and are known in speech as ''Lady'', the wife of a Baron is officially titled ''Lady'', while a woman holding that rank in her own right (usually a life peeress) is offically titled ''Baroness'' but is also commonly referred to in speech as ''Lady''. Hence, Margaret Thatcher, a ''suo jure'' life peeress, may be correctly referred to as either "Baroness Thatcher" or "Lady Thatcher". "Baroness" is not used for female holders of Scottish lordships of Parliament; for example, Flora Fraser, 21st Lady Saltoun is known as "Lady Saltoun" as opposed to "Baroness Saltoun." Children of peers also use special titles called courtesy titles. The eldest son of a duke, a marquess or an earl may generally use his father's second-highest peerage dignity as his own. Hence, the Duke of Devonshire's son is called Marquess of Hartington. An eldest son who uses his father's second-highest title is called a ''courtesy peer'', and does not normally sit in the House of Lords or enjoy any privileges associated with the Peerage. In law, courtesy peers remain commoners. The daughters and younger sons of dukes and marquesses prefix ''Lord'' or ''Lady'' to their first names. These terms are also known as courtesy titles. All children of viscounts, barons and lords of Parliament use ''The Honourable''. Children of earls do not use equivalent styles; daughters of earls use ''Lady'', but younger sons of earls use ''The Honourable''. Thus, individuals who use the style ''Lord'' or ''Lady'' are not necessarily peers, but it is usually possible to distinguish them by a knowledge of which subsidiary hereditary titles (such as "Marquess of Hartington") are in use and by a proper observation of whether ''Lord'' or ''Lady'' are used with or without the first name. The younger son of a duke, such as Lord Randolph Churchill, is addressed as "Lord Randolph" - "Lord Churchill" or "Mr. Churchill" would both be incorrect. But a ''suo jure'' peer is referred to by his peerage even if it is the same as his surname. Thus David Owen is correctly referred to as "Lord Owen". It is incorrect to call him "Lord David Owen", though such incorrect forms are very commonly used. A quasi-exception to this comes with life peers with common surnames who choose to combine their first and last names in their peerage title. Thus George Brown, Baron George-Brown was ennobled as ''Baron George-Brown''. Some peers, particularly life peers who were well-known before their ennoblement, do not use their peerage titles at all in authorial bylines or other ordinary usage, but go by their proper names. Others use a combination: thus the author John Julius Norwich is actually named John Julius Cooper and is the second Viscount Norwich. ==Privilege of Peerage== ''Main article: Privilege of Peerage'' The Privilege of Peerage is the body of privileges that belongs to peers, their wives and their unremarried widows. While the Privilege of Peerage was once extensive, only three privileges survived into the twentieth century. Peers had the right to be tried by fellow peers in the Lord High Steward's Court and in the House of Lords; this privilege was abolished in 1948. Peers have the right to personally access the Sovereign, but this privilege has long been obsolete. Finally, peers have the right to be exempt from arrest except for breach of the peace, felony or treason. This privilege has only been used twice since 1945. Peers enjoy several rights that do not formally form a part of the Privilege of the Peerage. For instance, peers and their families have positions in the order of precedence. Peers and peeresses wear special coronets at coronations of Sovereigns; depictions of these coronets also appear atop peers' heraldry. They have distinctive robes for use at coronations and in the House of Lords. ==History== ''Main article: History of the Peerage'' When William I of England conquered England, he divided the nation into many "manors", the owners of which came to be known as barons; those who held many manors were known as "greater barons", while those with fewer manors were the "lesser barons". When Kings summoned their barons to Royal Councils, the lesser barons were summoned through sheriffs, while the greater barons were summoned individually by the Sovereign. In 1254, the lesser barons ceased to be summoned; the body of greater barons, meanwhile, evolved into the House of Lords. Since the Crown was itself an hereditary dignity, it seemed natural for seats in the upper House of Parliament to be so as well. By the beginning of the fourteenth century, the hereditary characteristics of the Peerage were well developed. The ranks of baron and earl date to feudal, and perhaps Anglo-Saxon, times. The ranks of duke and marquess were introduced in the fourteenth century, and that of viscount in the fifteenth century. While life peerages were often created in the early days of the Peerage, their regular creation was not provided for under an Act of Parliament until 1876, with the passage of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. ==See also== *Aristocracy *House of Lords *Landed gentry *List of Dukedoms *List of Marquessates *List of Earldoms *List of Viscountcies *List of Baronies *List of Life Peerages (Life Peerages Act, 1958) *List of Law Life Peerages (Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876) *List of Irish representative peers *List of spiritual peers *Upper class ==References== *[http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/ Blackstone, W. (1765). ''Commentaries on the Laws of England''. Oxford: Clarendon Press.] *[http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Peerage_Law.htm Cox, N. (1997). "The British Peerage: The Legal Standing of the Peerage and Baronetage in the overseas realms of the Crown with particular reference to New Zealand." New Zealand Universities Law Review. (Vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 379–401).] *[http://home.freeuk.com/don-aitken/emayvols.html Farnborough, T. E. May, 1st Baron. (1896). Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George the Third, 11th ed. London: Longmans, Green and Co.] *"Peerage." (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed. London: Cambridge University Press. *[http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/peer63.htm Peerage Act 1963. (1963 c. 48). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.] Peerage
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! User: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. User:John Kenney 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 User: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: [http://laura.chinet.com/html/titles02.html]. -- User:Lord Emsworth 22:36, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC) P.S. It is probably "of Douro," as that style is used by Britannica: [http://search.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=115708&tocid=30136&query=duke%20nukem&ct=]. -- User: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. User: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... User:John Kenney 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. User:Garryq 12:11, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) == images? == Does anybody have images of the peers' coronets or robes? -- User:Lord 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. User: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, User: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? User: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. -- User:Lord 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? User:Mintguy User talk: Mintguy 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? User:Marnanel 06:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) Typo, I think. User:John Kenney 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? -User: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. User:John Kenney 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. :-) -User: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? :) User: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. -- User:Lord 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. User:John Kenney 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. -User: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. User:John Kenney 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. User:John Kenney 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. User:John Kenney 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.:User:Garryq 13:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==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." ([http://www.debretts.co.uk/peerage_and_baronetage/lords_spiritual.html Debrett's]) *The Lords are technically the "House of Peers" ([http://home.freeuk.com/don-aitken/emay299.html Erskine May]; [http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldcomp/ctso55.htm 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." ([http://www.pinetreeweb.com/bp-peerage.htm 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." ([http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/bassettnc/bassettnc.html ''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." ([http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page66-lord.asp Burke's]) *"[T]he spiritual lords are not now regarded as peers." ([http://7.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PE/PEERAGE.htm 1911 EB "Peerage"]) ===Discussion=== You are welcome to offer additional support for either position. -- User:Lord 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. User: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. -- User:Lord 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. User: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." -- User:Lord 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. -- User:Lord 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 User:Andrew Yong 17:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::Very well, I'll add the section soon. -- User:Lord 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. User:John Kenney 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)? -- User:Lord 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:What Wikipedia is not. User: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." User:Proteus User_talk:Proteus 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. -- User:Lord 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. User: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? == POV? == If ''peerage''is 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. User: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. -- User:Lord 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. User: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... User:62.78.120.237 19:55, 30 Apr 2005 (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. -- User:Lord 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? —User:Ashley Y 01:51, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
Peerage
{| cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" class="toccolours" style="float:right; font-size: 95%; margin:0 0 1em 1em;" |style="border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa"|
Peerage
Life peer
Representative peer |- |style="border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa"|Privilege of Peerage
History of the Peerage |}
Peerage
#redirect Template:Peerage
Peerage
Also including baronetcies, which are not peerages. Titles British monarchy Nobility by nation
Peerage
Maybe this ''shouldn't'' include baronetcies. —User:Ashley Y 10:50, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
P
PA | PB | PC | PD | PE | PF | PG | PH | PI | PJ | PK | PL | PM | PN | PO | PR | PS | PT | PU | PW | PX | PY | PZ |Words begining with Peerage:
Peerage
Peerage
Peerage
Peerage
Peerage
Peerage
Peerages
Peerages_of_the_United_Kingdom
Peerage_Act,_1963
Peerage_Act_1963
Peerage_Act_1963
Peerage_by_surname
Peerage_cases
Peerage_dignities
Peerage_law
Peerage_of_England
Peerage_of_England
Peerage_of_France
Peerage_of_France
Peerage_of_Great_Britain
Peerage_of_Great_Britain
Peerage_of_Ireland
Peerage_of_Ireland
Peerage_of_Scotland
Peerage_of_Scotland
Peerage_of_the_U.K.
Peerage_of_the_UK
Peerage_of_the_United_Kingdom
Peerage_of_the_United_Kingdom
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
