Talk:House of Lords Act 1999

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	House of Lords Act 1999 has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 28, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	Politics Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of politics and government within the United Kingdom. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Politics of the United Kingdom WikiProject.

[Removed trollery 68.39.174.238 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)]

No, Brian. The Act restricts those who are hereditary peers, the nobles that bear titles passed down through the generations. The Lords Spiritual do not inherit their titles from their parents; thus, the Act does not apply to them. As for Separation of Church and State, Her Majesty the Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which she and her forbearers have been for centuries and is unlikely to change at any point in the foreseeable future. (Without causing massive constitutional and parliamentary reforms, red tape, uproar over ending tradition and headaches all around, that is.) At least England is tolerent of all other religions within her dominions, unlike some other troubled areas of this world, to which I pray relief and prosperity will someday come. -- Euryale 21:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that within the United Kingdom, there is no established church in Wales or Northern Ireland, while in Scotland the constitutional position of the Church of Scotland is distinct to that of the Church of England in England JAJ 23:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reduction

So, is this upshot of this that the House is suddenly a few hundred (?) smaller? If so, how many were removed? 68.39.174.238 03:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Half of them, approximately. I added the numbers to the lead. -- Jao 16:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double peers

How is a person that holds a hereditary peerage but sits in the House of Lords for also holding a life peerage addressed within the House? Is it "The Rt Hon. The Earl of Snowdon", as he is known everywhere else, or "The Rt Hon. The Lord Armstrong-Jones"? -- Jao 12:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

He continues to be known as the Earl of Snowdon. Peers are always known by their highest title, even if it's not the title that allows them a seat. Here is an entry in Hansard from 2000 [1]. Then another lord refers to him as "the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon" [2]. The only time he is referred to as Lord Armstrong-Jones is when he takes the oath. Here's the first time when he was newly created [3] and in 2002, where it is in brackets after his usual title [4]

One slight variant to the rule above is wives of peers who hold life titles in their own right. For example, Baroness Masham of Ilton isn't called the Countess of Swinton, and Baroness Hogg isn't called the Viscountess Hailsham. JRawle (Talk) 16:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Jao 17:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that an actual rule or a case of both women opting to be known by their titles in their own right? (Similarly Dame Norma Major has refused to be known by the technically superior "Lady Major" as she's only that by virtue of John's KG, whereas she's a Dame in her own right.) Timrollpickering 21:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 28, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass, nicely done

2. Factually accurate?: Pass, did need some more citations (should be at least 1 per paragraph and they should appear after direct quotes) but this was rapidly fixed

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)