Talk:List of lord chancellors and lord keepers

Why are the Early Chancellors of England and the Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers of England included in the same page as the Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers of Great Britain, yet the Lord Chancellors of Scotland are on a separate page? Should the pre-Union institutions of both England and Scotland not be kept separate from those of the UK? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.53.46 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Plural Lords, singular offices

Shouldn't that be "Lords Chancellor" and "Lords Keeper" etc? As in "courts martial" etc? (I haven't checked anywhere, but it just doesn't ring true.) SiGarb | Talk 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, as in this case the adjective is Lord. They are chancellors and keepers. They don't necessarily have to be Lords (although they usually have been). As Lord Chancellor says, there is no legal impediment to the appointment of a commoner. In contrast, courts martial are courts. Martial is the adjective. See also Talk:List of Lord Mayors of London. JRawle (Talk) 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hmmm. Interesting: the word "lord" can be a noun or a verb, but I had never considered it as an adjective before! Neither does either of my dictionaries (Collins & Chambers), but they are similarly no help on the correct plural. Hansard, however, ought to know the answer, and I find it uses "Lords Chancellor" extensively in reporting business in the House of Lords. And here is an extract from The Judicial Functions of the House of Lords: "...frequent sittings by Lords Chancellor. The practice of different Lords Chancellor in sitting judicially has been remarkably variable." The usage "Lord Chancellors" is given in the next paragraph, but only in a direct quotation from someone. The document itself then returns to the usage "Recent Lords Chancellor, like their predecessors, have sat in cases of constitutional importance..." (see [1] ) I'm pretty sure Lords Keeper of the Seal would therefore follow suit, but can only find one (online, and thus to be taken with a pinch of salt) reference, to the Finch family (of Rutland?), "members of which have been Speakers of the House of Commons, Lords Keeper of the Seal, Recorder of London, Attorney-General". So, with respect, I think you must be mistaken. (And as for Talk:List of Lord Mayors of London, I'm with your old sparring partner FearÉIREANN on this one. SiGarb | Talk 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that parliament says the plural is Lords Chancellor and Lords Keeper writing Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers looks plain ignorant and unencyclopaedic. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 20:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The office isn't even formally "Lord Chancellor" — in the most formal documents, such as Writs of Summons to Parliament and Letters Patent, issued in the name of the Queen in the first person, the Lord Chancellor is "Our Chancellor of Great Britain" (see here, for instance). A group of people who are each Chancellor of Great Britain can't collectively be anything other than Chancellors of Great Britain. And having random switching between "Chancellors" and "Lords Chancellor" depending solely on whether you want to stick the meaningless honorific "Lord" in front of the title would be bizarre. Proteus (Talk) 20:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]