|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Dec 1, 2018 9:53:37 GMT
Oh there are some, either through explicit creation or because of inheritance at different points, but far from all. The Irish peerage remains a legal grant of the sovereign that was never transferred to what is now the Republic (and remember that "Irish independence" was a process not an event). Thanks Tim, I felt that it couldn't be right that they were automatically UK peers; I've been reading some Lord Dunsany and was thinking I'm damned sure I'd never heard of him or his heir taking any part in British politics after 1922. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Dec 1, 2018 11:17:46 GMT
Oh there are some, either through explicit creation or because of inheritance at different points, but far from all. The Irish peerage remains a legal grant of the sovereign that was never transferred to what is now the Republic (and remember that "Irish independence" was a process not an event). Thanks Tim, I felt that it couldn't be right that they were automatically UK peers; I've been reading some Lord Dunsany and was thinking I'm damned sure I'd never heard of him or his heir taking any part in British politics after 1922. Lord Dunsany. Now there's an interesting man.
His ghost story "In a Dim Room" is one of the best. I've also got some of his plays - quite bonkers. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 1, 2018 11:33:14 GMT
Thanks Tim, I felt that it couldn't be right that they were automatically UK peers; I've been reading some Lord Dunsany and was thinking I'm damned sure I'd never heard of him or his heir taking any part in British politics after 1922. Lord Dunsany. Now there's an interesting man.
His ghost story "In a Dim Room" is one of the best. I've also got some of his plays - quite bonkers. Amongst other things a lifelong chess enthusiast who devised his own variations on the standard game. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Dec 1, 2018 11:35:07 GMT
Lord Dunsany. Now there's an interesting man.
His ghost story "In a Dim Room" is one of the best. I've also got some of his plays - quite bonkers. Amongst other things a lifelong chess enthusiast who devised his own variations on the standard game. A man long overdue for a new biography. I'll have to dig out my copy of the one written in the 60s - I don't remember it mentioning chess. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135 
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 1, 2018 19:36:36 GMT
And Albemarle is I believe a Norman title (Aumale) originally so I suppose that's even odder. Yet the Lords presumably never refers to the Prince of Waterloo, Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo and of Victoria. He is never referred to as the Duke of Victoria because that is not one of his titles. He is the Duke of Vitória. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Dec 2, 2018 1:37:51 GMT
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 2, 2018 10:53:46 GMT
Amongst other things a lifelong chess enthusiast who devised his own variations on the standard game. A man long overdue for a new biography. I'll have to dig out my copy of the one written in the 60s - I don't remember it mentioning chess. His entry in Wikipedia does in some detail, though. He was a strong amateur player. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 6, 2018 21:27:35 GMT
I've sometimes seen it rendered in English as 'Duke of the Victory' before but never 'Duke of Victoria' before. I suppose a funeral programme counts as a pretty official source. It does make it sound like his title refers to the capital of British Columbia, though. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jan 20, 2019 19:47:50 GMT
Just noticed that Viscount Slim passed on New Year’s Eve; although I can’t find mention on the Lords website it does say he was an elected hereditary, so should there not be a by-election?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 20, 2019 19:52:33 GMT
Just noticed that Viscount Slim passed on New Year’s Eve; although I can’t find mention on the Lords website it does say he was an elected hereditary, so should there not be a by-election? He was an elected hereditary from the Crossbenchers' Group so there will be a byelection. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jan 20, 2019 20:02:31 GMT
Just noticed that Viscount Slim passed on New Year’s Eve; although I can’t find mention on the Lords website it does say he was an elected hereditary, so should there not be a by-election? He was an elected hereditary from the Crossbenchers' Group so there will be a byelection. Thanks David, I thought so, but as I said couldn’t find mention on the Parliament website. |
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Jan 30, 2019 17:31:03 GMT
HEREDITARY PEERS BY-ELECTION DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESULT: 23.01.2019
This was to fill the vacancy for one of the 15 Excepted Peers elected by the whole House caused by the death of Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative). Any eligible hereditary peer not already in the House can nominate themselves but under the Carter Convention the successful candidate should have declared their intention to sit as a member of the Conservative group.
The successful candidate was Lord Reay.
There were 16 candidates - 10 declared Conservatives, five Crossbench, one "no affiliation declared". 259 Peers voted in the Alternative Vote election.
Lord Reay won at Stage 11 by 110 to 93 (by which time 56 papers had gone dead). The runner-up was the Earl of Leicester. Lord Biddulph (Con), Lord Cadman (NAD) and Lord Southampton (X-bench) got no votes. Lord Reay led throughout with 73 first preferences, with the Earl of Leicester (46 first prefs) always chasing.
Just thought you would all get terribly excited by all this...
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 30, 2019 19:22:24 GMT
HEREDITARY PEERS BY-ELECTION DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESULT: 23.01.2019This was to fill the vacancy for one of the 15 Excepted Peers elected by the whole House caused by the death of Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative). Any eligible hereditary peer not already in the House can nominate themselves but under the Carter Convention the successful candidate should have declared their intention to sit as a member of the Conservative group. The successful candidate was Lord Reay. There were 16 candidates - 10 declared Conservatives, five Crossbench, one "no affiliation declared". 259 Peers voted in the Alternative Vote election. Lord Reay won at Stage 11 by 110 to 93 (by which time 56 papers had gone dead). The runner-up was the Earl of Leicester. Lord Biddulph (Con), Lord Cadman (NAD) and Lord Southampton (X-bench) got no votes. Lord Reay led throughout with 73 first preferences, with the Earl of Leicester (46 first prefs) always chasing. Just thought you would all get terribly excited by all this... Just for a moment I thought you meant the peers in question had died.... just how we view the HoL , I suppose  |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jan 30, 2019 20:48:08 GMT
How many of the original 92 are still sitting?
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jan 30, 2019 21:04:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 27, 2019 19:14:27 GMT
Landslide victory in the Crossbenchers byelection. Electorate 31; turnout 28.
Ravensdale, L. 18
Meston, L. 4
Albemarle, E. 1
Aldington, L. 1
De Ramsey, L. 1
Dormer, L. 1
Glenconner, L. 1
Hankey, L. 1
Effingham, E. 0
Hampton, L. 0
Mountgarret, V. (Mountgarret, L.) 0
Powerscourt, V. (Powerscourt, L.) 0
Southampton, L. 0
Spens, L. 0
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Mar 27, 2019 19:17:06 GMT
How many of the original 92 are still sitting? The House of Lords Act 1999 should have restricted the pool from which new members could join to those who were already peers. It still would have passed (i.e. secured their interests), and led to the slow but inevitable phasing out of this wretched system. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Mar 27, 2019 19:22:51 GMT
Landslide victory in the Crossbenchers byelection. Electorate 31; turnout 28. Ravensdale, L. 18 Meston, L. 4 Albemarle, E. 1 Aldington, L. 1 De Ramsey, L. 1 Dormer, L. 1 Glenconner, L. 1 Hankey, L. 1 Effingham, E. 0 Hampton, L. 0 Mountgarret, V. (Mountgarret, L.) 0 Powerscourt, V. (Powerscourt, L.) 0 Southampton, L. 0 Spens, L. 0 Isn't that Nicholas Mosley? |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Mar 27, 2019 19:24:27 GMT
Landslide victory in the Crossbenchers byelection. Electorate 31; turnout 28. Ravensdale, L. 18 Meston, L. 4 Albemarle, E. 1 Aldington, L. 1 De Ramsey, L. 1 Dormer, L. 1 Glenconner, L. 1 Hankey, L. 1 Effingham, E. 0 Hampton, L. 0 Mountgarret, V. (Mountgarret, L.) 0 Powerscourt, V. (Powerscourt, L.) 0 Southampton, L. 0 Spens, L. 0 Isn't that Nicholas Mosley? Nicholas died in 2017; this is his 37-year-old son Daniel. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Mar 27, 2019 19:30:16 GMT
Isn't that Nicholas Mosley? Nicholas died in 2017; this is his 37-year-old son Daniel. I'd forgotten that.
Can't be many in the Lords younger than him.
|
|
