Talk:Hereditary peer

Featured Article candidacy comments (promoted)

Hereditary peer

(Uncontested -- July 7)

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth

• Support 172 05:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I like several of the other peerage-related articles too. 81.168.80.170 19:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support - seems rather complete and should do fine alongside the already FA peerage article (other articles in the series also look like they might be featurable). --mav 06:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support this Emsworth work, too. James F. (talk)

Prince?

With Reference to Prince as Degree within the British Peerage

"It is also possible to suggest that a principality is a peerage dignity."

Whereas it possible to suggest,it is is quite wrong. There are five degrees of the British peerage, no more, no less.

Of course I understand the source of confusion as the House of Lords Act 1999 states that "In this Act "hereditary peerage" includes the principality of Wales and the earldom of Chester." But note that whilst that may be the case for "this Act" it is not otherwise the case.

To explain further.

If you examine the Explanatory Notes produced in conjunction with the original House Of Lords Bill and in particular the Commentary on Clauses, you will see that it includes the following text.

(See http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmbills/034/en/99034x--.htm)

Clause 1: Exclusion of hereditary peers

5. The main provision of the Bill ends membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage....

6. The exclusion from membership applies to all those who are members of the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage, including -

members of the Royal Family who have the right to sit and vote in the House (the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of York, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent);

Here the authors of the bill are expressing their intentions as regards the legislation they wish enacted. Specifically they wish to ensure that no member of the Royal Family is a member of the House of Lords and since the only member of the royal family not known under a peerage dignity is the Prince of Wales it is felt necessary to include the Principality of Wales within the definition of an hereditary peerage for the purposes of the Act.

This is simply a typical belt and braces approach to legislation. The authors wished to ensure that no Prince of Wales later emerged and claimed that he was enitled to a seat in the House of Lords on the basis that he was not named in the act.

The whole point is this. The House of Lords Act 1999 does not support the contention that Prince is a degree within the British Peerage but quite the reverse, as if that where the case it would not have been neccessary to the specific clause that re-defined what constituted an herditary peerage.

I hope that is clear. Unfortunately it is neccessary to stamp on this sort of amateurish nonsense as otherwise it percolates all over the internet and generates its own validity through constant repetition.

ProfSmith

As for the House of Lords Act 1999, I don't think it has any bearing on the issue. If the Principality of Wales were indeed a peerage dignity, the Act would have to be so worded to ensure that it is not treated as a life peerage dignity.

It appears that even the editors of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica seem to have got this wrong, then: "Until recent years the title prince was never conferred on anybody except the heir-apparent to the Crown, and his principality is a peerage." It was on the basis of this remark—not on the basis of confusion caused by the House of Lords Act—that the reference to the Principality of Wales had been added.

-- Emsworth 14:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ISTM that this paragraph should be clarified, at least, to indicate that although some authorities consider the Principality of Wales to be a peerage (and the point is moot, since I don't believe anyone has been granted this title in modern times who was not already a Duke), other members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the title "Prince" are not considered hereditary peers by virtue of that title. RussBlau 17:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Number of Princes

The table lists the number of princes as "1". This seems to be self evidently true, but there has actually been one other principality created by the Crown: the Prince of Arcot was created to replace the heirless Nawab of the Carnatic. Whilst this title remains in India, it was still created, presumably, via letters patent and counts, surely, as the only other creation of a principality apart from Wales? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.90.233 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Writs of Acceleration

Before peeresses were permitted to attend the House of Lords, would the heir-apparent of a countess or duchess suo jure be eligible for a writ of acceleration? --Anglius 19:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why not, as long as the countess or duchess had a lower peerage dignity available to be accelerated. -- Emsworth 19:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I thank you, Lord Emsworth. --Anglius 19:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If the father is a duke and possesses a subsidary marquisate and earldom but no barony, would his eldest son be able to receive a writ of acceleration as the earl, provided that it is not of the main title, Lord Emsworth? I had assumed that only baronies are created by writ. --Anglius 20:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd imagine it would be theoretically possible, but as far as I'm aware it's never happened (I don't know of any instance of anyone being summoned by writ of acceleration even in a viscountcy). However, in such a situation I think it would be far more likely that the heir apparent in question would simply be created a baron. Proteus (Talk) 21:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your answer, Mr. Tilman. --Anglius 23:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope that you would not mind my inquiry, Mr. Tilman, but could the son of a viscount be able to receive a writ of acceleration if his father possesses more than one subsidary barony? --Anglius 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The only requirement for the procedure is that the father possesses more than one peerage. There has even been a case where the son of a baron who held two baronies was summoned in the junior of the two. Proteus (Talk) 09:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I thank you, sir --Anglius 01:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Writ of Summons Error?

I am a clueless newbie, so I am not going to attempt to address this one myself. However, writ of summons is included in this article as a link...and it just takes you back to the top of this article. This doesn't seem right. How can it be fixed? -- Talvin

The 'link' could be omitted, sir. --Anglius 20:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It's gone.Dave 03:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Two questions

I have two questions. The answer to the first should probably be incoprporated in the article. The answer to the second is only speculation. I don't know the answer to either.

1) Now that the Labour Government has sabotaged the hereditary peerage's right to sit in the House of Lords, how is the "authenticity" of any claimant to an hereditary peerage to be validated? Previously, of course, if the Sovereign summoned you, you must be a peer.

2) Given the the anti-aristocratic labour government has made the hereditary peerage politically impotent, as a group, is the next Conservative government likely to re-introduce them? After all they will no longer affect political balance.

Avalon 01:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the first question, I don't think that the 1999 Act will affect it–the Queen still terminates an abeyance now and then, and determining succession is, more than anything else, a question of genealogy. I think David can answer this better. Regarding the second point, there hasn't been a new non-royal hereditary creation since the mid-80's, and regular creations ceased once Harold Wilson began his first premiership. That is to say, they've been a dead letter for a generation, something that Thatcher tried--but failed--to reverse. Reintroducing hereditary peerages would be something that the present Conservative leadership (Cameron) would preseumably want to avoid. Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

She didn't try very hard: one Earldom for a Prime Minister, as was traditional, and two peerages which were effectively for life (neither grantee had an heir, nor was likely to). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me - how flattering that I'm suggested as a specialist answerer of such questions! I've no doubt some people may take note of that.

The answer to the first question is that (possibly surprisingly) nothing has changed. New hereditary peers continue to petition the House of Lords claiming to have succeeded to the peerage. The House refers the petition to the Committee on Privileges, which after a brief investigation (a few weeks) reports back through the Lord Chancellor that they have established their claim. The only change since 1999 is that instead of sending a writ of summons, the House orders the Clerk of the Parliaments to enter them on the register of hereditary peers maintained for the purposes of byelections. The committee's deliberations are in private but the petition and the outcome are recorded in the Minutes of the House of Lords. Here is an example of a petition from the new Lord Abinger, and of the granting of the new Viscount of Oxfuird's claim.

I'm not a complete expert on this but as I understand it, it's not quite true to say that anyone receiving a Writ of Summons was a peer. The creation of Baronies by writ was a common practice but eventually died out. Lord Mayhew of Twysden challenged the 1999 reform on the grounds that the Writ of Summons entitled the recipient to membership of the House of Lords for the whole Parliament. This challenge was rejected (details of reasoning here).

I disagree. I don't think there is any legal dispute except in the earliest times that the result of someone without a peerage receiving a writ and taking their seat was to make them a peer. However the rulings that may be muddying the waters are the one you mention and much more importantly the ruling on Irish peers. [The latter claim based that if Irish peers retained their writs after the end of the union and the end of the mechanism to elect new peers then those remaning must be attending by some other right than as Irish representative peers so it must be by a 'new' writ so a new peerage was created.] Both cases failed because the the writ only creates a peerage where none already exists. So any peer called in their extant title needs no new peerage. Alci12 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is not currently part of the Conservative Party's programme to begin to create additional hereditary honours. Given the way the British constitution works, there is no way of actually abolishing the power for good, so conceivably any future government could decide to do so. David | Talk 13:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of hereditary peers

We have a 1999 table outlining the number of hereditary peers. Can someone compile a 2005 (or 2006) table. It would be interesting to see the rate of attrition (particularly since 1964 if someone can pull out an old Whittiker's Almanac). Homey 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be interested in the current numbers too. I found the following piece of information: http://lifepeeragesact.parliament.uk/lifePeeragesAct/landing.php?id=37 which claims that there were "over 800" peers in the House of Lords in the 1950s.--Roentgenium111 17:37, 18 January 2010

See List of dukedoms in the peerages of the British Isles, etc. Such numbers could be extracted from these lists. —Tamfang (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you mean List of earls etc.? In principle, yes. I tried, but the numbers do not add up: The number of dukes and marquesses given there equals the 1999 numbers here (if one includes Irish peers and disregards the one prince-duke), which seems quite likely. But for earls, viscounts and her. barons, the number of listed persons is much higher than the 1999 numbers given here (again, including Irish peers - excluding them would lead to numbers substantially lower than the ones given here), which makes no sense since no more were created since 1999. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Bummer. How far off? —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that when one person inherits titles from two different people, the two titles get separate pages. I'm not sure if you figured out a way to separate extant from extinct peerages, but that could be an issue too. Although there is no perfect list, the Ministry of Justice maintains a peerage roll (to replace the one the House of Lords used to keep) that they plan to put online. It is not clear why it is not yet, but I have emailed them to find out when it will go up. They are willing to send you a copy, so if someone in the UK wants to get one, you could ask. -Rrius (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

@Tamfang: About 20 to 40 each. @Rrius: the List of earls (in contrast to the List of earldoms) is supposed to only show extant peerages, so extinctions should be no issue with my count. There is a single-digit number of disclaimed peerages, but that's not enough to explain the differences. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you dealt with Irish peers? List of Earls, for instance, includes Irish peers, but many did not have titles in peerages that would give them an automatic seat in the Lords. -Rrius (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed an Irish peer may or may not have a lower UK title which would not show up on our lists. (Is Earl Vane the highest example?) —Tamfang (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Duke of Abercorn is an Irish title; the list linked to below notes that he is on the Roll as a Marquess of the UK. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

@Rrius: I did, see my above post, but the numbers do not match either way. BTW, is "hereditary peer" supposed to include Irish peers or not? The article is not clear on this issue... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although there is no current news of the Irish peerage since the death of the last Irish representative peer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The peerage roll Rrius mentioned is now online: [1]. If someone cares to count the hereditary peers on it, I would be grateful...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wales is in alphabetical order before Wessex among the royal dukes; Cornwall and Rothesay redirect to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Adoption?

The article states that, "Also, it is necessary for English patents to include limitation "of the body", as in "heirs-male of the body". The limitation indicates that only lineal descendants of the original peer may succeed to the peerage." Does that mean that adopted sons could not inherit the title? nmw 00:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Possibly such a rule was adopted instituted to discourage childless peers from adopting someone in exchange for tangible consideration. —Tamfang 04:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was wrong. There is not a common law assumption that heirs general applied in the transmission of non-Scottish peerages. There are cases where the patent is heirs general, not of the body, but these have (with the one exception of the Earl of Devon in 1831 where the Cmtee for Privilages had too liquid a lunch and granted the claim) been denied. The last case was the Scrope Earldom in 1862 where the CfP restated that for peerages heirs general doesn't exist in English law. You must think of the langauage as mere form save where it grants specific and intentional exceptions. Common law assumes that peerages descend to heirs male of the body lawfully begotten and will continue to assume so even if a word is omitted from the patent. It takes a very very clear wording to counter that presumption and the CFP has refused claims where the patent appears to violate peerage law by say creating shifting remainders.

With regard to adoption or illegitimacy, the law regarded and regards (bar Scotland) both as not being heirs so having no right to inherit. Until very recently they had no rights but by royal warrant of 2004 "such styles and courtesy titles as are proper to the younger children of peers of the realm will in future be accorded to children adopted by peers". Alci12 15:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Deprived?

Alan de Bretagne was made Earl of Cornwall in 1140 and, according to the Wkipedia article, "deprived" of this title in 1141, when it was given to Reginald de Dunstanville. Bretaygne lived until 1146, and retained the title of Earl of Richmond (granted to him in 1136) until his death, so presumably the Earldom of Cornwall was not forfeit because of some act against the monarch. And this is the only example I can find of a title being re-created during the lifetime of a former holder. Anyone know what happened there? 172.159.242.171 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

In those days, an Earldom was an office. The King deciding that A should cease to be Earl and B should be instead was fairly common; the last parallel, I think, is the deprivation of George Neville, Duke of Bedford in 1478. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hereditary Peers in 1999: 1 Prince??

Can somebody explain to me who is the Prince in the list with numbers of Hereditary Peers in 1999? Is this the Prince of Wales? If indeed, is he a Hereditary Peer? Demophon 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As indicated in an earlier comment, it is probably the Prince of Wales (see [2]. However strictly (I think) the title "Prince of Wales" is conferred by the sovereign on her (or his) eldest son, and the present Prince of Wales was probably a member of the House of Lords as Duke of Cornwall, which is a hereditary title vested in the severeign's eldest son. Before Prince Charles' inauguration as Prince in the late 1960s, he was known as Duke of Cornwall. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Prince Charles was created The Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester on 26 July 1958, though his actual investiture did not take place until 1 July 1969. (from his article.) Was he really known as Cornwall in 1968? —Tamfang (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It is my recollection that he was known as Duke of Cornwall when young. The sovereign's heir-apparent automatically has this title. I expect that sources could be found for this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, from 1952 to 1958 his highest title was Duke of Cornwall; but was he still referred to by that title after 1958? – Wasn't the investiture of 1969 a new invention? —Tamfang (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand! Is he a member of the House of Lords thanks to the fact that he's "Prince of Wales" or in spite of the fact that he Prince of Wales?? With other words: Is the title "Prince of Wales" a peerage title or a royal title? This because the introduction suggests that the title is indeed a peerage title, like as "Duke of Cornwall" (which clearly is). Whether this is a peerage title hold by a royal or a royal title is a clear distinction! Demophon (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In spite of the fact he's Prince of Wales, which is the justification for the Union of England and Wales. Complete Peerage has no listing for Wales, although it does for Cornwall and Chester. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Titles Deprivation Act

The caption for the picture of a Duke of Cumberland mentions the number of persons deprived of hereditary peerages pursuant to the Titles Deprivation Act 1917. It was recently changed from three to four and reverted. Four persons were affected but, as two of them were this duke and his son (who had no peerage but was a Prince of the UK), they had only three peerages between them (not counting subsidiary titles). —Tamfang (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A question

Does anyone know why kings on European continent can bear domestic peerage titles, but British monarch can't ?

For example, Queen of Netherlands also bears the peerage title Baroness of Breda(barony lies within Netherlands), but Queen of UK can't bear any domestic peerage title? See link: [3] --Siyac (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.234.180 (talk)

This is probably a matter of custom in each country. The Queen is in fact also Duke of Lancaster, but the title is not used in practice. This is partly the result of the doctrine of merger, that the lesser tile merges in the greater. The situation in the Netherlands is perhaps different since the state was created as an aglomeration of duchies, counties, etc. that were originally part of the Holy Roman Empire. Similarly, before the Revolution, France was not a united nation, Lorraine and some other provinces belonging to the French crown as a result of inheriting outer titles. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The barony of Breda is much older than the Kingdom of the Netherlands; but all British peerage titles are creations of the Crown(s), and the monarch cannot be her own vassal. — Not even Duke of Lancaster. The Duchy of Lancaster still exists, without a Duke (just as the Duchy of Cornwall continues to exist when there is no Duke of Cornwall). The myth may have been encouraged by Edward VII's practice of calling himself "Duke of Lancaster" while on vacation abroad; this was a polite fiction to avoid royal protocol. —Tamfang (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, some of the kings of Scotland had English peerages; these would have vanished in 1603 if not before. —Tamfang (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have one question: but what about the hereditary title Duke of Normandy, is this not an exception on the previous explanation? In this case the doctrine of merger does not apply, I would say... Demophon (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not that the queen cannot have another title, but that if it is a British title, it would disappear upon accession under the doctrine of merger, the lesser title being absorbed by the greater. William IV was Duke of Clarence before his accession, but the title merged on his accession; James II was Duke of York, as (I think) was George V. Conversely (and cognate with Duke of Normandy), the first four Georges were also Elector of Hanover, as well as Kings of Great Britain and Ireland. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The duchy of Normandy was a fief of France, not England, so indeed it was not subject to merger – until Edward III claimed the French crown! (Assuming it was not surrendered by the treaty of 1259, that is.) — The title was later given to French royal princes, and vanished if they succeeded to the throne. —Tamfang (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The duchy of Normandy is entirely a victorian/edwardian fiction, like Lancaster. The title was renounced by almost as many english kings as there are who held it, and the french claim had the same effect on absorbing french peerages (Normandy was one of the original twelve); besides the bailwicks were effectively separated from the duchy by treaty in the 14th century, papal arbitration in the 15th, and were effectively run as an anomalous part of England since the 17th. The only ducal titles used by the kings immediately after the congress of Vienna were those tied to Hannover (Brunswick-Luneburg and so on); prior to Vienna they considered themselves king of France even though the Plantagenet origin of the claim was long gone and hadn't used the duchy of Normandy in their titles since the 14th century. 216.252.76.235 (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Prior to the Act of Union with Ireland in January 1801. But it was the same point; difficult to claim to be King of France *and* support Louis XVIII at the same time.

But by the same token it cannot have been entirely a Victorian fiction; George IV did rule Guernsey, and not as King of France. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sixth new peer

It seems there is a sixth peerage created since 1965: Viscount Macmillan of Ovenden, given to Macmillan at the same time as his earlship, currently held by his great-grandson. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Earldoms invariably created with subsidiary Viscountcies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.253.61 (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Except when they're not; e.g. Huntingdon, Devon, Lisburne, Belmore, Caledon, Ducie. —Tamfang (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, in which case one's eldest son simply invents a title! ha --86.165.253.61 (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are some senior titles that do not have subsidiary ones at all levels. Nevertheless, the practice was to grant them. Technically, they are separate titles, but only get used as courtesy titles, so that they hardly count. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway: I've changed the article to remove (at least one instance of) confusion between the number of new peerages and the number of new peers. —Tamfang (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Total list

A total list of the number of peerages created by each of the kings/queens would be nice, not only for the Stuarts. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Slight omission?

The articles says, "Peerage dignities are created by the Sovereign by either writs of summons or letters patent. Under modern constitutional conventions, no peerage dignity would be created except upon the advice of the Prime Minister." While that is certain true for the most part, are royal peerages such as Prince Edward's being created "Earl of Wessex" dependent on ministerial advice? I acknowledge that it's possible, but that doesn't sound right to me. -Rrius (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Prime Minister's weekly meetings with the Queen are a matter on which nothing is published, so that we cannot know. I think it highly likely that the subject was discussed in detail, but it may have been more a case of the Prime Minister acceding to the Queen's wishes than vice versa. The issue of letters patent, in fact, requires documents to be signed (or sealed) by various officials, such as the Lord Chancellor. They are political appointees, so that the grant of any peerage today is a political decision. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, my particular issue is with the phrase "except upon the advice of the Prime Minister". As I'm sure you are aware, the term "advice" has a special meaning in the context of ministers and monarchs. If the situation is in fact that the Queen consults the Government, and they acquiesce, that is almost the reverse of ministerial advice. My concern here is not that the article belabour the point; rather, I want the article to accurately reflect reliable sources. If we cannot establish how royal peerages work, then we should either acknowledge that or limit what is now absolute language—perhaps by amending it to read, "...created except upon the advice, or at the very least the assent..." or something of that sort. As an aside, what is the purpose of using the word "dignity"? If it serves some purpose, is it necessary to use it twice in quick succession? That passage is the first point where the word is used, and it is not defined. In short, why not just say "peerage(s)"? -Rrius (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but think you may be making too much of an issue of it. I suggest you amend it as you think appropriate. If I (or some one else) does not like it, we can either revert or edit further. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'm making too much of it. The text as written appears to overstate matters, but I am not expert enough to feel secure in swooping in and making the change. It would be one thing if we actually had a source to paraphrase, but we don't. I think I'll just wait and see if anyone else responds. -Rrius (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

number of recent peer(age)s

Only eight hereditary peers have been created after 1965: five in the Royal Family (the Duke of York, the Earl of Wessex, the Duke of Cambridge, the Earl of Strathearn, the Baron Carrickfergus) and three additional creations under Margaret Thatcher's government (the Viscount Whitelaw, the Viscount Tonypandy and the Earl of Stockton).

The last three royal peers mentioned are the same person. If we're listing new peers there should be six (three royal); if we're listing new peerages there should be twelve (eight royal) — if I haven't lost count! I'll remove Strathearn and Carrickfergus. —Tamfang (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Peers without UK citizenship

Can anyone provide a list of non UK citizens created UK peers ?

(User talk:Siyac) 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyac (talk • contribs)

Depends on what you mean by a UK citizen (a tricky question). All peers have been British subjects; but that's not the same thing. There was exactly one peerage given to an Indian.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, which peerage are you referring to ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyac (talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Baron Sinha Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there are a few UK peerages that have devolved upon heirs who are not UK citizens. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

See Lord Fairfax; there are also Peers with Australian citizenship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Rights and privileges

The article mentions that "A peer who disclaims the peerage loses all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage", but nowhere in the article does it mention what rights and privileges are associated with peerage (besides sitting in Parliament). What are they? Do they vary? Julesd 13:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hereditary 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130116034858/http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/Honours.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/Honours.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hereditary 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130103205512/http://www.parliament.uk/education/online-resources/parliament-explained/members-house-of-lords/mps-need-to-know/ to http://www.parliament.uk/education/online-resources/parliament-explained/members-house-of-lords/mps-need-to-know/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hereditary 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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908100412/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/106i/106i01.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/106i/106i01.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hereditary 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040630060220/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990511/text/90511-19.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990511/text/90511-19.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Female inheritance

As the "vast majority of hereditary peerages can only be inherited by men", it would be interesting to give the (approximate) number of peerages which allow female succession, ideally separated by the degree to which they allow it. For some of those, like the Duchy of Marlborough and Scottish duchies, a female peeress is only a hypothetical possibility as there would have to be no male-line descendants of the original title holder at all (however distant) for a daughter to succeed. OTOH, the Earldom of Mar has succession by heirs general, which apparently means male primogeniture, giving daughters a realistic chance to succeed if she has no brothers (e.g. the Countess of Mar's younger brother died before succession, and her daughter is an only-child and thus the heiress presumptive). And are there any peerages that practice actual gender-neutral succession, like the monarchy does since 2011?--46.114.1.186 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Definition

Surely this article should begin with a definition of what a hereditary peer actually is? Something along the lines of "A/An hereditary peer is ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoniGlaser (talk • contribs) 07:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

husbands of princesses

The practice of granting hereditary titles (usually earldoms) to male commoners who married into the royal family appears to have also ended. The last such peerage was offered to Captain Mark Phillips, who declined. The most recent to accept was the Earl of Snowdon.

Now I'm wondering how many such husbands were thus ennobled before 1960, and how many royal ladies have married since then. —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)