Talk:House of Lords Act 1999

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 28, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 11, 2010, and November 11, 2014.
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

No title[edit]

[Removed trollery 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)


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

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

Double peers[edit]

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)

Successful good article nomination[edit]

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)

Prince of Wales & Earl of Chester[edit]

Does anyone know why two of the honours Prince Charles holds are mentioned separately in the act? The royal family's web site at [5] identifies these as titles he gained on his own investiture rather than his mother's, but I don't see how this would prevent them from being treated as "normal" royal hereditary peerages, which are not mentioned in the act. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The "normal" royal hereditary peerages are passed on automatically to an heir according to law while the the titles of Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester need to be granted each time by the reigning monarch. For example, Charles became Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay automatically on his mother's ascension to the throne in 1952, but was not granted the titles Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester until 1958. Road Wizard (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional Problems with Act[edit]

According to some of my sources, because Tony Blair did not go about removing the Letters of Royal Commission from the Hereditary Peers the correct way (A separate act voted upon in the House of Commons per individual Letter of Royal Commission), this act could technically be illegal and unlawful, thus making every law passed from the first of January 2000 AD Null and Void, including the Lisbon Treaty.

To rectify this, the House of Commons will either have to remove every last Letter of Royal Commission of from the Peers that have been removed from the Upper House one by one with separate acts per Lord Temporal, or the House of Lords Act 1999 will have to be repealed, BEFORE the House can commit to any further business. Either way it still messes up all the laws passed in the last ten years.

It might be wise for any legal beagles to research this further and make a note of this in the article should it be proven as correct.

Bluthund (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth asking a reliable source to check into the details and publish your claims. Once published by a reliable source we can make comment on the matter here. We cannot publish the research of our own editors. Road Wizard (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the Marquess of Cholmondeley in the House for life?[edit]

The Act says that people sitting in the House by virtue of being Earl Marshall or exercising the office of Lord Great Chamberlain get to sit for life unless excepted by another Act. Does that mean that Cholmondeley will remain in the house after Her Majesty's death moves the Lord Great Chamberlain's office to the next person in the rotation for that office? Or has another Act come along to address that? (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)