Talk:Peerage of England

Question on Duke of Richmond

Question on Duke of Richmond: The article says, Duke of Richmond (1675), also Duke of Lennox in the Peerage of Scotland and Duke of Gordon. But isn't that only because of the linkage of a common family? I mean, the Duke of Richmond isn't also Duke of Lennox because he is Duke of Richmond, but due to a series of dynastic marriages, correct? RickK 05:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's irrelevant to the idea of the page, which was merely to list all members of the peerage of England, and take note of other peerages of equal or superior rank which they might hold. To :address your specific question, Charles Lennox, illegitimate son of Charles II and the Duchess of Portsmouth, was created Duke of Richmond (and subsidiary titles) in the Peerage of England, and Duke of Lennox (and subsidiary titles) in the Peerage of Scotland, in 1675. His descendant, the 6th Duke (I think) was created Duke of Gordon in the Peerage of the UK in 1876, due to his being the heir of the last Duke of Gordon (but he didn't inherit the old Scottish dukedom - it was a new creation). Some of the other peerages are closer to what you're talking about. For instance, that Viscount Saint Davids holds various ancient English baronies is rather random, I think. john 06:59, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake, I suggest: Instead of "The Earl of Shrewsbury (1442), also Earl Talbot in the Peerage of Great Britain and Earl of Waterford in the Peerage of Ireland," use "The Earl of Shrewsbury (1442) (GB Earl Talbot; Ireland [Ire.] Earl of Waterford)" -- Lord Emsworth

Is that really simpler? It seems more like the sort of abbreviation which would be used in a Peerage manual, but I'm not sure that makes it superior for encyclopedic purposes. john 17:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Then how about using a tabular format? We could have one column listing the appropriate titles in the Peerage of England, for instance, with a second column for the date of creation, and a third for titles in other peerages. Cluttering would be avoided. -- Lord Emsworth 19:29, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I'd suggest that if this is also done for the Peerage of Scotland and Peerage of Ireland articles, that the title which gave them the right to sit in the House of Lords (if any) should be listed, even if it is of lesser rank than the principle title. But this would require some work... john 01:05, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Help this poor American understand what the peerages are *of*. For example, is the Earl of Cardigan earl of the town of Cardigan, Ceredigion or of the Cardiganshire county or of something else? Would be nice if each of the articles (and/or this table) mentioned that. I came here trying to find a clue as to what the Welsh Corgi (Pembroke) and Welsh Corgi (Cardigan) were named after, and I'm presuming it's the same thing that the titles are named after (although that's not this article's job)--but these articles didn't even give me a clue! And goodness knows I'm clueless enough. ;-) Elf | Talk 16:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

They are just names. There are I believe peerage titles in the 'of' form that don't exist as placenames. Morwen 17:02, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

The Earls of Onslow, Craven and Lovelace spring to mind, but I could be wrong. (The first two of those have the surnames Onslow and Craven respectively, but Lovelace is just completely random, as far as I am aware, as Lord Lovelace's surname is King.) Proteus (Talk) 18:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pembroke and Cardigan are both traditional counties of Wales. Peerage title names are basically meaningless, although titles of Earl and above are frequently named for counties - so, yes, the Earl of Cardigan (currently the Marquess of Ailesbury) is officialy Earl of the County of Cardigan, and so forth. This kind of thing is particularly true for older titles. More recent titles frequently have no particular referent. john 17:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

missing titles?

Is this list complete? Where (for instance) is the Earl of Arundel ? Doops 18:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At Duke of Norfolk...we only list the highest peerage any peer possesses in the particular peerage on this page. john k 20:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see — lots of subsidiary titles are included but only those which are backing up a non-English peerage. Hence the Earl of Exeter (for the purpose of this page) exists but not the ditto of Arundel. I have to say that seems sort of unsatisfying to me: it's a case of "almost-but-not-quite-all." Like a birthday party: it's polite to invite only a few of your closest friends, or (alternatively) all your schoolmates — but rather rude to invite 80% of them. I suspect that far more English subsidiary titles are "hidden" by GB or UK peerages than by English ones. Doops 21:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess the idea is to name any individual who is a peer of England, rather than all peerage titles in the Peerage of England. All those titles are listed at List of Marquessates, List of Earldoms, List of Viscountcies, and List of Baronies, at any rate. john k 22:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Marquess of Granby is also missing 121.73.7.84 (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason; it has always been subsidiary to the dukedom of Rutland. (Even on my most liberal days I would not list titles that were created as subsidiary.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Cleveland

This article has been mentioned in the media as the location of a hoax. I've written what I think the situation is in the talk there, but a further check by someone who knows something about the subject would be appreciated. Thanks, Banyan Tree 16:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dukes of Normandy and of Lancaster

Please, somebody add that. What other important ducal titles are held by the Sovereign? IP Address 09:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sovereign doesn't hold any such titles in law they 'exist' only as traditional forms of address as in the first example the channel Islands.Alci12 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the horrible risk of making more work, I note we're missing a good number of abeyant titles like Botetourt (1305) I think Montagu and Morthermer also apply. [I don't mean titles that have been abeyant since 1300 but those that could reasonable be terminated should probably be here.Alci12 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alci, I think such titles are listed in List of baronies. The Peerage of X articles are meant to list currently existing peers, no? john k 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though I can understand that for the 700 yr old abeyances it feels a bit odd for titles in abeyance for a few years and just waiting likely termination as we will keep switching them between pages. Looking at that page there appear to be a good number of errors...well or else we're back to the how do you spell some baronies argument again. I'll make a post on the talk page there as ppl may have a reason for amending it as they have.Alci12 11:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alci, how does the Duchy of Cornwall exist...but not Lancaster? Also, why should Normandy not exist with its partial English form in the Channel? Look at the UK coat of arms. Do you not see Normandy included? Even though Aquitaine is supposed to be on it, I haven't brought that up. IP Address 00:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Duchy of Lancaster exists, but there is no Duke of Lancaster. It simply belongs to the crown. The monarch cannot hold any titles. Also, the Kings of England gave up all claim to the Duchy of Normandy by treaty in 1259. 04:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

More precisely, a monarch cannot hold any titles created by the same crown (cannot be her own vassal). —Tamfang (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

title of article

Peerage is a countable noun and refers to individual noble titles, such as dukedoms. The uncountable collective term for all peerages is nobility. Having a peerage makes one a member of the nobility. Members of the nobility have peerages. The article should be about the English nobility.

You are right, peerage is a countable noun. That means, in this context, that one could refer to three peerages: the peerages of England, Scotland, and Japan, say: each of which is the body of peers of that country. That is what the article is about. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

should the article maybe be edited to say that a little? I had to read quite a bit before I even had the smallest idea what a peerage even was Spencer707201 (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dukes

Is that list comprehensive? What about Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster? Or is he not of the English peerage?Jatrius 21:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Rutland

Where is the duke of Rutland ? That dukedom is in the peerage of England and is not extinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.236.114 (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be because of a discrepancy in the subsidiary titles belonging to the Dukedom. There are 5 subsidiary titles, namely Marquess of Granby (a courtesy title used by the Duke’s son), Earlof Rutland, Baron Manners, and Baron Roos of Belvoir. All preceding titles belong to the peerage of England, but the Roos barony belongs to the peerage of the United Kingdom CanadianPrince (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table formatting

I added Baron Badlesmere (1309) from finding him by the Random article feature. However, I am puzzled by the formatting of the Barons table, especially right after Baron Badlesmere. Should every entry have a horizontal line following it in the table? If so, there is a Baroness without a preceding horizontal line. Also, and maybe this is a known bug, the preview does not look like the saved article table. Perhaps more experienced editors can figure out the syntax and fix the problems. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge

This dukedom has just been restored. The new Dukedom of Cambridge is a peer of the United Kingdom (not of England)Trajanis (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and what about York and Westminster why are they not included or is the list just out of date. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The peerage of England has had no new creations since the kingdom of England was merged into the kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. —Tamfang (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

female succession in England

I've never seen an explanation, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, to reconcile these two facts:

Before the Tudors, female succession to English earldoms was apparently common.
In modern times, the only English peerages that can pass to daughters (other than by special remainder) are baronies by writ. Even the oldest surviving higher peerages are now male-only.

Was there a legislative change? —Tamfang (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earldoms in England before 1066

Do the Earldoms in England before 1066 form part of the Peerage of England or not? Greenshed (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. —Tamfang (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]