Talk:Representative peer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Representative peer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.


Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] older entries

I will suggest that after Union with Ireland, there existed a Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, and a Lord Chancellor of Ireland, but no Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, whose office was terminated upon Union. I cite, for instance, as my authority, the Articles of Union: "whenever the Seat of any of the twenty eight Lords Temporal so elected shall be vacated by Decease or Forfeiture, the Chancellor, the Keeper or Commissioners of the Great Seal of the United Kingdom ... shall direct a Writ to be issued under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, to the Chancellor, the Keeper or Commissioners of the Great Seal of Ireland for the time being..." -- Lord Emsworth 22:53, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

I think "of the United Kingdom" is describing the Great Seal only, and that the Chancellor remains "of Great Britain". For instance:
"ORDERS APPROVED AT THE COUNCIL HELD BY THE QUEEN AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE ON THURSDAY 12 JUNE 2003
Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain
Order recording that the Rt Hon Charles Leslie, Baron Falconer of Thoroton QC was sworn Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain."
Proteus 00:32 GMT, 20th January 2004

Yes, I've never heard the term Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom. Is there currently a Lord Chancellor of Northern Ireland? john 00:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that there is "Lord Chancellor" of NI, but there seems to be, under the Anglo-Irish Treaty, a successor to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, but whom exactly this may be I do not know. As far as the Chancellor of the UK is concerned, the term is, as I have found by searching, incorrect, but I had always held the view that it was correct, considering that it is the only one I had heard heretofore (Google gives 46 hits for "Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom" and 306 for "Lord Chancellor of Great Britain".) Furthermore the Articles seem to have ambiguous wording. -- Lord Emsworth 03:32, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

It would appear that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was succeeded by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [1]:

Present, The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council

Her Majesty, having been this day pleased by Her Royal Proclamation to dissolve the present Parliament and to declare the calling of another, is hereby further pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order that the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland do respectively, upon notice of this Her Majesty's Order, forthwith cause Writs to be issued in due form and according to Law for the calling of a new Parliament, to meet at the City of Westminster on Wednesday, the 7th day of May 1997; which Writs are to be returnable in due course of Law.

N H Nicholls

-- Lord Emsworth 01:14, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Various comments on the article

While I find this to be an excellent article, I nonetheless have a few comments, but don't feel comfortable addressing them myself without degrading the overall quality of the currently very coherent article:

  • The article cites "Burke's Peerage" without explaining what it is. Is this a standard reference work of some sort? A general reader may not be familiar with it. If it's a book, perhaps it should also be italicized.
  • The end section sounds a little bit non-neutral: we seem to be saying that at least some of the decisions of the Law Lords were wrong, and furthermore that Burke's Peerage is wrong on at least one point, and taking these positions ourselves rather than reporting on others who take these positions ("cannot be said to be wholly convincing" is rather non-neutral, for example).

--Delirium 19:25, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)


Burke's and Debrett's are the standard reference works on the peerage (also Complete Peerage, but that's not been updated since the first half of the century, at latest, I believe). Likely, articles are needed on these works. As to the second, Lord Emsworth seems to have taken care of it. john 02:07, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Would it be useful to have a list of the Scottish and Irish Representative Peers? 'Cos I've got one. - Dbiv 21:05, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Most definitely, it would be useful. I think it could be put on a separate page, so as not to cause clutter. Is the list on the internet, un"wikified," or is it properly formatted? -- Emsworth 23:25, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

It's not on the net but it is on computer and can be wikified. PS how is the Empress? Dbiv 23:58, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unhappy since she does not have an article of her own. -- Emsworth 01:09, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

The List of Irish Representative Peers is now up. Dbiv 10:16, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


The List of Scottish representative peers is also now in place.--George Burgess 17:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just moved the content of "representative peer" to "Peers and Parliament" so that a single article can contain information on which peers did and did not sit in the House of Lords. -- Emsworth 23:48, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Should the current type of representative peer come first?

Just wondering: Should the current type of representative peer -- that is, those heredetary peers who have been elected by the House of Lords to sit -- be the primary definition for this article, since the other type -- Scottish and Irish peers elected to sit -- are now of historical interest only? --Jfruh (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bravo!

Nice work, a truly fine article! Howard Cleeves 13:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)