Talk:List of hereditary peers removed under the House of Lords Act 1999

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page history[edit]

This list was created to replace a category, as decided at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 20#Category:Hereditary peers removed from the House of Lords under the Act 1999. – Fayenatic London 21:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on inclusion of flagicons, other peerages held by peers whose highest titles were in the Peerage of Scotland and subsequent extinctions of peerages[edit]

So there have been disputes on this page over the inclusion of flagicons, other peerages held by peers whose highest titles were in the Peerage of Scotland and subsequent extinctions of peerages.

Item 1: With the flagicons, they have been removed from similar pages such as 1999 House of Lords elections and By-elections to the House of Lords on the grounds that peers do not represent countries in the House of Lords, thus this is in contravention of MOS:FLAG. However, it could be argued that since only specific peerages gave a right to sit in the House of Lords, it may be relevant to show which title was in which peerage, since titles in the Peerage of Ireland did not have automatic representation, thus some Irish peers had lower titles in Peerage of England, Peerage of Great Britain, and/or the Peerage of the United Kingdom by which they sat in the House of Lords.

Item 2: However, related to this issue, the page also added such listing of lower titles to peers whose highest titles were in the Peerage of Scotland, even though the Peerage Act 1963, to quote that article, "granted peers of Scotland the same right to sit in the House of Lords as peers of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom", thus their holding of titles in other peerages doesn't seem relevant to their membership.

Item 3: There was also notes adding marking which peerages subsequently became extinct, many of which happened years, if not decades after the act was imposed, which doesn't appear to be directly related to the Act.

Should these items be included in the article or not? 2601:249:9301:D570:DCE:DB6E:BCC:F04D (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Was there a discussion before opening up this RFC? I'm afraid the question here is too broad for one RFC. A brief statement would encourage more comment. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]