Talk:List of life peerages (2010–2024)

Last column

I removed the "Date of Extinction" column, which seems useless in this context. These are all life peerages, and so they don't "go extinct" in the sense that hereditary peerages do. I suppose all of these people will eventually die - such is life - but even then, some 100 years from now, I can't see why this article would have that column.

I replaced it with "Notes" for two reasons. First, it's easier to just rename the unused column than to go through the table syntax to get rid of it. Second, I think a "Notes" column may be useful to the reader in terms of indicating very briefly what the person did before becoming a peer, or any similar interesting facts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a mistake. This list is of a piece with List of life peerages (1958–1979), List of life peerages (1979–1997), and List of life peerages (1997–2010), each of which not only has a similar column, but uses it. The lists are at separate articles only because a single list was considered too long; there is no substantive or thematic reason for the separation. As such, what happens to one should happen to all.

The peers created since May will, as you noted, die eventually, and the peerages will consequently become extinct. The reason the column was retained for this list was because, as you pointed out, it would be tedious to go through and eliminate the code. If you really think the column shouldn't exist, I think it should be discussed with respect to all such lists rather than just this one unilaterally.

As to the note column, I don't specifically have any objection, but I think it should be added to all if it is added to one. -Rrius (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I essentially agree with Rrius, though I wouldn't mind omitting the extinction column until the first death from this list occurs. And if Jimbo prefers it, I would be fine with replacing "extinction" by "death" in the column header, if it is done in all 4 articles. But the column's informations should remain in principle. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the others, life peerages do become extinct on the death of their one and only holder. As this is a list of peerages, not peers, "extinct" would seem to be the more appropriate term. I don't see a problem with an additional "Notes" column, though.

As for adding/removing columns, I guess this is tricky becasue of the "bizarre table structure" Jimbo talked about on BBC News. Nothing Emacs and a regexp search and replace couldn't handle, though. JRawle (Talk) 11:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for the claim that life peerages "become extinct on the death of their one and only holder"? (I mean, in one very broad sense, of course they do, but is this terminological way of speaking something that we invented where we should not, or is it used by other sources, for example the House of Lords itself, or one or more of the major reference works about the Peerage? It just sounds odd to me. (Of course "sounds odd to me" is not a legitimate reason for me to oppose us using it - if others do!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this a question I should ask somewhere else? I really do think it is confusing to readers to see a column for 'extinct' for life peerages, and I really do fear that this is terminology that we made up ourselves. I am happy to be proven wrong, but I don't know where to turn.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that folk would not mind renaming the final column provided the final column was consistent with those on lists of other peerages. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I do think it is a bit silly to talk about extinction of a life peerage when it by definition goes extinct on the death of the first holder. Changing the title to "death "would make more sense than changing just this table to have a notes column (and it's not clear what kind of note we're talking about). Anyway, whatever we call it, we could use MS Word's find-and-replace function to removed the code or insert comment tags to hide it. For instance, Find "^p| ^p|-" and Replace with "^p|-" would remove the last column's code. This would leave removing the dates of death at the other articles the only tedious possibility. -Rrius (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"in the County of..."

I have noticed some users have been going through and adding "in the County of" to the titles where it seems to be missing. However, this column should reflect the way the county or administrative area is described on the Letters Patent. Scottish council areas tend not to be described as "the County of" anything as they are not counties. Similarly, Lord Williams of Baglan is "of Neath Port Talbot in Glamorgan" as Glamorgan isn't a current, preserved county or a principal area. Sometimes there are inconsistencies in how a particular area is described. For example, some Letters Patent have said "East Yorkshire", some "East Riding of Yorkshire". It's important our page matches the Letters Patent. Please could I ask everyone to use the London Gazette or the Lords website to check a title if you think it may be wrong, before changing it? Thanks, JRawle (Talk) 11:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"Gazetted"

Is this really a word? If so, is it encyclopedic? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes and I don't know. The word is real, and means published as a notice in the Gazette. As for whether it's encyclopedic, I have no idea. -Rrius (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Maurice Glasman

Has he been gazetted? [1]. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, and the title used in the article cited and to which you moved our article is exceedingly unlikely to be the actual title he takes. More likely is that he will be Baron Glasman, of Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill in the London Borough of Hackney. -Rrius (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for new column

I think it might be helpful if this list, and previous lists in the series, included a column showing the honours list on which the Peerage was announced. In other words, whether the Peerage was an honour for services to the nation, or one on a list of 'Working Peers', or from the House of Lords Appointments Commission, or a Ministerial peerage created by a Prime Minister wishing to appoint someone to Government from outside Parliament. There is no difficulty in finding reliable sources for this information, although it might take some time. Note that there are articles about some of the biennial honours lists which formerly included a few Peerages on them, eg 1985 New Year Honours. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a column is necessary or that this would necessarily be clear cut. The implication for people on the biennial lists would be that they were appointed merely as an honour. But is that necessarily true? And what about resignation and dissolution honours? If we were to go forward, we should consider using footnotes instead of a column. The table is cramped as it is. -Rrius (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Parties

Last June, Debonairchap added a column with the peers' political affiliations. I would like to propose a review of its existence for the following reason: this list is about the titles, not their political value. It is absolutely fair to mention a peer's political affiliation at members of the House of Lords because it lists the peers as political personalities. This list, on the other hand, looks at them from a more "genealogical" and College of Arms point of view, like list of barons in the peerages of Britain and Ireland, so I believe that the parties just do not belong here. They are not mentioned at all in the other lists of life peerages, after all.--The Theosophist (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Resignation/Dissolution Honours

I notice that David Cameron's section begins with the fifty-six peerages created through the 2010 Dissolution Honours. I presume that Theresa May's will likely include those that occur in the Prime Minister's Resignation Honours, 2016. Is this necessarily right? The first batch of baronies listed under Cameron were actually recommended by Brown, and May's first will actually have been recommended by Cameron (likewise back down the line in 1997, 1990, 1979 etc.) - are we not perhaps falsely attributing a large number of creations by listing them in this way?

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Only just seen this question. I guess the reason is that only the Prime Minister of the day can recommend to the Queen that someone is granted a peerage. They may have been nominated by the previous PM, but equally it could have been the leader of the opposition or the Appointments Commission. The table currently does not list who nominated for the peerage (apart from an obelus for the Appointments Commission). Whether we need an extra column is another discussion, but in a chronological list, you can only really have subheadings for the PM at the time the title was created. JRawle (Talk) 12:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

New Peers

What about Davidson and the rest of the newest set of Life Peers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DB:6726:6901:E158:6E53:46DA:804F (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't found anything that says the announcement is official yet, so they haven't been added yet. Emk9 (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Just read that there is a long list coming I presume in the delayed Birthday Honours.

According to the Times 30 people including Sir Eddie Lister.2003:DB:6702:9401:20AE:154F:4FE1:904C (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Arlene Foster likely be announced soon. 84.167.81.194 (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Heywood

Has it happened before that a Life Peer died before he could take his seat?82.100.251.67 (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Split for Charles III

There has been some debate over how long the current page can get, and when it would be best to split off the next volume. Is now a good time? Even if the party in government has remained the same, we have a near-simultaneous change of monarch and prime minister. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems this might be a good opportunity. Statistics for the previous pages are (as far as I can tell):

(1958–1979): 21 years and 381 peerages

(1979–1997): 18 years and 340 peerages

(1997–2010): 13 years and 429 peerages

(2010—2022): 12 years and 375 peerages

I suppose it might depend on what party is in charge after the next election, but things can always be changed again. It seems a good idea to cut it now, and give the Carolean life peers a new page. Obobson (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

With the general election just five days away and pollsters near certain that Labour will win, I've drafted the new page in advance. We just need to move this one to List of life peerages (2010-2024) and put an extra link in the navbox. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

New Peers 2022

Some users are deleting again and again coming peers who were already added. 79.238.83.116 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

They're being removed for being unsourced. Emk9 (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

But I have read sources myself. So you can readd them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.91.50 (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The source listed only mentions Markham, Johnson and Murray being granted peerages. If there's another source listing those others names, it can be added. 2601:241:300:B610:8925:2BDE:DFED:79F5 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Here it is https://www.gov.uk/government/news/political-peerages-2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.91.50 (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Still there are only a small part of them listed.84.167.91.50 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC about territorial qualifications

I propose each territorial qualification should matches the Letters Patent. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Has there been any talk page discussion at all about this? There is no indication of such on the IP user's talk page or this talk page. It is usual for RFC's to have talk page discussion before opening one, see WP:RFCBEFORE. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@JML1148: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#List_of_life_peerages_(2010–present)_etc.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Some ip users have changed them to forms that only existed in older letters patent like "County Palatine of Durham"[2] and "County of Salop"[3], which are inconsistent with the actual letters patent[4] [5].--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• (summoned by the bot) Following the terminology in the letters patent sounds sensible to me. Has anyone objected to that standard (other than drive-by IP editors who might have been confused or mistaken about the terminology)? I agree with User:JML1148 that this doesn't seem to need an RfC given the minimal prior discussion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I was summoned by FRC too. I would say that it makes sense to abide with the letters patent terminology as well, but we definitely don't need an RFC unless multiple other editors object. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 10:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburgh

If Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh is neither in the main list nor mentioned in the introduction, on the grounds that his life peerage was not created under the Life Peerages Act 1958, then perhaps the title of the page "List of life peerages (2010–present)" should change to something narrower. 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:691F:F623:CF1E:F7D3 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Techincally, these pages already excluded law life peerages, so I don't think we need to change anything. 2601:249:9301:D570:4CC3:27E4:859C:9775 (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Truss Resignation Honours

After BBC reporting it I think we should add Porter, Moynihan, Elliot and Littlewood. HulkNorris (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Why is it taking so long with the announce ent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HulkNorris (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sir Edward Young

I've read today that he will be enobled. HulkNorris (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC) The article is already updated!HulkNorris (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. – robertsky (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

---

List of life peerages (2010–present) → List of life peerages (2010–2024) – I think that now would be the logical moment to close this list and create a new one, because this list consists of life peerages created under successive Conservative majority, minority or coalition governments during 14 years and now Labour takes the power. Closing this list now would also be in line with the two most recent preceding lists as List of life peerages (1997–2010) consists of life peerages created under successive Labour governments during 13 years and List of life peerages (1979–1997) consists of life peerages created under successive Conservative governments during 18 years. Editor FIN (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support: As I said earlier, I already had a draft of the new page ready. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support Seems like a logical cutoff.2601:249:9301:D570:B519:DC52:8298:C7B (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Support I think the life peers nominated under Rishi Sunak Dissolution List should stay in "List of life peerages (2010–2024)" Wellyboynz (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That is already addressed in a section above. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Seems to be a suitable cutoff. I feel as though if done it should be strict and the 2024 Dissolution Honours should be moved to the top of the new page (perhaps some sign or mark could be added to them to distinguish such 'overlapping peerages'? An alternative could be introducing a new column signifying upon whose authority each peerage is granted, but it would probably be very difficult to find that information accurately, and certainly too complicated for something like this.) I do still think the change of reign should be signified on this page in some more pronounced way. Obobson (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.