Next to "Baron Haden-Guest" has been placed the note that the title is held by the actor Christopher Guest. There is no need to place such a note next to anybody's title, in my humble opinion. I propose to remove such a reference. Lord Emsworth 02:55, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
This article is so detailed it needs "as at .. November, 2003" notice in the first line. Andrew Yong 07:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
In terms of locking the date, I would suggest that we update it on the New Year to accommodate all changes between 25 November and then, and that then we update at some regular frequency - every three months or so? john 20:23, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I would agree as to the locking. I propose as follows:
- A "General Review" take place:
- Each time new honours are awarded (i.e. New Year's and Queen's Birthday)
- Once between each general review specified by 1 above
- Reviews of the appropriate sections take place:
- Upon the appointment of a new Prime Minister of the U.K., Minister, or Great Officer of State
- Upon a Royal birth
-- Lord Emsworth 23:35, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the Great Officers of State take precedence before all Peers, whether or not they are Dukes. It's only in Parliament that they rank before all others of their grade of the peerage.
- Hmm...that is not what Burke's says. Do you have a source? john 19:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- "The Great Officers of State do not have the same rank in and out of Parliament. In Parliament, their office confers upon them precedence before the other peers of their own rank, but not before peers of higher rank. Outside Parliament, their place does not depend on their peerage." Proteus 20:14 GMT, 11th January 2004
Also, between "eldest sons of Marquesses" and "younger sons of Dukes" should be the eldest sons of the eldest sons of Dukes (like the Earl of Burlington, eldest son of the Marquess of Hartington, eldest son of the Duke of Devonshire). As their fathers rank as Marquesses but after all substantive Marquesses, they rank after Earls but after the eldest sons of substantive Marquesses. This pattern continues further down the table, as if Lord Burlington were to have a son, he would rank as a Viscount, but after all substantive Viscounts, the eldest sons of substantive Earls, and the eldest sons of eldest sons of substantive Marquesses. Proteus 18:27 GMT, 11th January 2004
- Feel free to make additions, of course. john 19:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I'll have access to a 1999 Burke's from tomorrow, so I'll try to make a start then. Proteus 20:14 GMT, 11th January 2004
Alright, then. Do the court officials (Lord Chamberlain, Lord Steward, Master of the Horse), also function in this manner, or not? john 00:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The act that governs precedence in Parliament is The Act FOR PLACING OF THE LORDS (31º Henry VIII c. 10), which stipulates,
- It is, therefore, now ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord President of the King's Council, and the Lord Privy Seal, being of the degree of Barons of Parliament, or above, shall sit and be placed ... above all Dukes...
- And it is also ordained and enacted by authority aforesaid, That the Great Chamberlain, the Constable, the Marshal, the Lord Admiral, the Great Master, or Lord Steward, and the King's Chamberlain shall sit and be placed after the Lord Privy Seal in manner and form following; that is to say, every of them shall sit and be placed above all other personages, being of the same estates and degrees that they shall happen to be...
- Thus it would appear that in and out of Parliament, the Lord High Chancellor, the Lord High Treasurer, the Lord President, and the Lord Privy Seal have absolute precedence. However, the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Earl Marshal, the Lord Steward, and the Lord Chamberlain are above other individuals of the "same estates and degrees". -- Lord Emsworth 01:05, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)