Talk:Peerage of Ireland

old edit

shouldn't a list of Irish peers only contain, you know, Irish peers, and the Gaelic nobles be moved to a different page? john 11:14, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No. I think they should be here. There have recognition from the Chief Herald of Ireland and many also have peerages from the Kingdom of Ireland and the UK of GB and I. The O'Conor Don, for example, was given pride of place as the premier "Irish peer" at the coronation of King Edward VII. FearÉIREANN 23:38, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...well, they're obviously members of the Irish nobility, but the page is specifically a list of "peers"...so I don't know...The explanatory material should certainly be clearer, though. john 02:46, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that a page could be made on "Gaelic Nobility," for instance, because the term Peerage does not seem to properly apply to those who are not peers. By the way, is it agreeable if the (in my humble opinion neater) format used in Peerage of England and Peerage of Scotland be applied here? -- Lord Emsworth 19:26, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

I have no objection, but it would mean we'd lose some information, wouldn't it? I created the other two pages after working through this one. john 01:03, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The article states: "This list covers peerages possessed by Irish people from any of the three categories. The title is listed first, followed by famous figures associated with the family beneath. It does not include non-Irish people awarded Irish titles; for example, the Duke of Connaught, son of Queen Victoria." I don't think that "Peerage of Ireland" is the right place to fulfil such a requirement. Instead, I deem that a page, either Gaelic Nobility or Irish Nobility be used for the same, and that the Peerages of England, Scotland and Ireland be similar in format and in purpose. -- Lord Emsworth 11:38, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Irish nobility would be a good place for this, I'd think, and yeah, then we can make the Peerage of Ireland more standardized. john 00:34, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

What is the present-day position of Irish peers in the eyes of the Republic of Ireland? Specifically:

• What proportion of the peers live in the Republic (as opposed to in the UK or abroad)?
• Of those living in the republic, do they typically hold Irish or UK passports? If the former, do the passports include their titles or only their personal names?
• If there were a dispute over the descent of an Irish peerage, where would it be decided?

Thanks. Doops 20:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I could not give you an exact number relating to your first question. I can, however, accurately state that historically, many Irish peers have had nothing to do with Ireland; rather, many (or perhaps even most) were granted Irish peerage dignities so that they would not flood the House of Lords. If you have the time, you may check Burke's Peerage, which gives the addresses of all peers. Your second question, and perhaps also your first question, may be addressed in this article (1995).

Well, I looked a number of them up in the online Burke's (insofar as possible without registering), and I discovered several whose listed residence was in the republic, but whose CV included stints at Eton and/or in the British military. Doops 22:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

After the Union of 1801, the House of Lords (of the United Kingdom) assumed jurisdiction over Irish peerage disputes, even though Irish were not automatically entitled to seats in that House. The House of Lords continued to retain jurisdiction after 1922; see the Standing Orders of the House of Lords. In practice, the matter is resolved not by the whole House, but by the Privileges Committee. (Note: Theoretically, the Sovereign, as fons honorum or fount of honour, determines all disputes relating to peerages or other dignities, whether English, Scottish or Irish. It is, however, well-established that the Sovereign and his or her ministers would consult the House of Lords if there is any dispute over a Peerage. The Sovereign could in theory disregard the House of Lords entirely, but in practice would not.) -- Emsworth 20:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is the role of the Ulster King of Arms? john k 23:51, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know that Lyon is, for all practical purposes, the arbiter of peerage disputes in Scotland. He would determine which individual is entitled to the deceased peer's arms undifferenced; the House of Lords would just abide by his decision. But I do not believe that the Earl Marshal or Garter have similar functions in England; I would imagine that the same would apply to Ulster. -- Emsworth 22:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On one of the three questions - Irish law specifically allows for a choice between using the "peer name" or the ordinary first + family name combination. SeoR 11:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ireland does not recognise peerages as anything more than a form of name, so someone calling himself the Duke of Connacht would be treated the same if he called himself John Smith or the Guru of Eternal Happiness.Cavort (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Viscount Fitzwilliam

Viscount Fitzwilliam is not mentioned...? --Joy [shallot] 17:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's because it's extinct. Proteus (Talk) 17:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Same goes for Viscount Palmerston then I guess? Should they not be mentioned somewhere in a table? deadstar not logged in

You mean here? Mackensen (talk) 29 June 2005 10:06 (UTC)

extinct titles

some extinct titles have been haphazardly added. Please don't do this - this page was meant to be a list of currently extant Irish peerdoms. the List of dukedoms, etc. pages list all the extinct titles. john k 20:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

name

Peerage is a countable noun; the correct term is the nobility of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You are wrong. Wereon (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jurisdiction / subsistence of titles

People keep trying to bring the Republic of Ireland into this issue - it's irrelevant. These titles were created by a state - either the Kingdom of Ireland, or the state into which it merged, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The legal successor to that state is the current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Peerages are a legal concept, not a territorial one, and so are unaffected by territorial movements. Indeed, they continue to be treated by the United Kingdom in exactly the same way as they were before. They may refer to places outside the UK, but that no more removes them from the UK's jurisdiction as it does the Earl of Albemarle. And the Republic of Ireland has never purported to have any control over Irish peerages - instead it merely recognises that they exist, as do many states recognise foreign titles held by its citizens. People seem to be under the impression that peerages are somehow inextricably linked to the place to which they refer, and that when that place changes jurisdiction, so does the title. This is simply a gross misunderstanding of the law. (And, in any event, it could only ever hope to apply to places outside the UK - I can't even begin to see how Irish law could have any bearing on the Marquess of Londonderry or the Earl of Antrim.) Proteus (Talk) 17:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Entirely agree with you. Though as a matter of human interest, it would be good if the article got into how these titles operate in indepdent Ireland today (e.g. does the Government refer to persons by their titles etc). I think it touches on it but its a topic people are naturally interested to understand. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As to the original quote from nearly 3 years ago, I can't remember anyone trying to bring RoI into the issue. But agree with FrenchMalawi as to the interest in a section to describe how the titles operate in Ireland today. FWIW, from my own experience, people are still referred to by their titles. --HighKing (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an old comment on this talk page, but it's as good as one as any to address.

"People seem to be under the impression that peerages are somehow inextricably linked to the place to which they refer, and that when that place changes jurisdiction, so does the title. This is simply a gross misunderstanding of the law."

I guess the wording of peerages e.g Earl of Cork would give that impression. How is it not linked to a place? What law, or set of laws, are you speaking of?

The United Kingdom has absolutely no jurisdiction in the Republic of Ireland. Do your research on that one. Any pretence to is a gross continuation of a brutal occupation of a sovereign country. I can't imagine the amount of nonsense going on in Russian wikipedia right now, with Russian trolls citing "the law" as justification for laughably out-dated vestiges of power, or claims of power.

I completely reject the idea Britain has "jurisdiction". "the Republic of Ireland has never purported to have any control over Irish peerages" Why would it? It's a foreign concept. What I need to see evidence of is that current civilian government Britain purporting to have control over Irish peerages. It is a fact that no Irish peers have ascended into the House of Lords since the 1970s, AFAIK.

@SeoR suggested that I bring some conversation to the talk page. You said in the revision tab "It is a fact that the old titles are regulated by UK law". Can you provide a source for this?

You also said "And no new titles have been given, but if they were, they are not 100% barred but would require permission to accept." New titles are being given every time it "passes down" to next person who believes themselves entitled to it. The real matter is no permission has been given, nor to my knowledge has permission ever been sought. That is the arrogance of foreign imperialism, to pretend that Ireland is in fact not a republic.

I'm happy to hear fact-based opinions on this, or research to show that this is not a bunch of makebelieve kept alive by dreamers of past Empire. Like current British statute, or current Irish statute that supports this. Wikiejd2 (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Wikiejd2, and good to debate this here - and I hope others, such as @Iveagh Gardens:, @Frenchmalawi:, @Smirkybec: and @Chrisdoyleorwell:, might join in. Before I address the specific points, and as, with ~40 edits, you may not yet have come across all our policies, let's remember that we are only here to document the world as it is. We do not deal with what might be or give much space to obscure alternative theories, not is Wikipedia a place to right perceived wrongs ... so, for example, whether use of titles might be considered pretentious is not relevant. Nor can we burden the biography of a person whose common naming is "Duke x" or "Lady y" with notes asserting that this is somehow out of order - that sort of thing is not our role. And we absolutely do try to avoid original research. The titles are extant, very public facts, they have legal standing in the world (they are a form of both property right and honour, though they are not, as some feudal baronies were, saleable), they are massively referenced in reliable sources, including every major Irish news source, and so we work with them. Some holders of titles use (or they are used by others when referring to them) their titles strongly (some branches of the Guinnesses, and the folks at Lismore), some intermittently (the people at Slane and the Dunsanys, for example), and some actively avoid public use (the current Longford, for example) - none of this changes the facts.

We can hold whatever opinions we like about all this. Some people find these old titles cute, some an interesting historical remnant, some see them as a reminder of bad past times, some offensive - that's all fine, and none of it has anything to do with Wikipedia.

So, titles being tied to places and their current legal environment - that's a no. They were named after places, once upon a time, but even long ago, landholdings were a separate point - they might cross over with a title, usually did back in the early centuries of the Anglo system, for example, but they did not and do not have to, and there are, even now, titles related to places in the world long severed by borders. And certainly the nominal place of a title and its legal standing have no link at all - any government can assign whatever titles it wishes, and no other country can stop it (it might be considered odd or impolite, but that's a whole other thing).

Then, jurisdiction - well, as explained above, and maybe below too, jurisdiction is with whatever power or polity created the title, or their successor, and that's, for the Peerage of Ireland, the UK powers (technically the Crown but with the usual sorts of delegation). They have nothing at all to do with Irish law (including the constitution). Of course, DeValera's government, or anyone since, could have, or have tried to, ban their use within Irish borders, or demanded that Irish-only citizens surrender them, but they didn't - they largely chose to ignore them. Irish peerage lines have continued uninterrupted all these years, and no one has ever suggested in Dail or Seanad doing anything to try to interfere with that, or to try to limit public expression using them. Now if someone wants to bring a case, or pass a piece of legislation, changing this, we will report on that and its effects. But the titles would still exist in the wider world anyway. And, an important point, many holders are not Irish residents, some not even Irish citizens, so where would Irish jurisdiction come from for them? We have no exclusive rights over Irish place names.

The comparison with Russia and Ukraine is irrelevant. But what might be useful is to think about the big foreign companies so critical to our economy - they are founded within, and regulated largely by, US, UK and other legal systems, and no one questions that. Likewise with most books, cars, computers, etc. Things from one jurisdiction are often interacting in other jurisdictions, and we defer to some arrangements formally, as with double tax treaties, but others just exist.

And so, succession - no, a successor does not take a new title, they assume the holding of a long extant title. Again, the Dail and Seanad could attempt to forbid heirs from taking up their titles, but they have never even debated this idea, never mind acted on it.

I hope that this helps. I have no strong views on the substance of the matter, but I do have very strong ones about Wikipedia working from facts, and keeping personal opinion out of it - but I always welcome new and active editors who care about the work and its quality. SeoR (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

On the current position, it is regulated by a UK Royal Warrant of 2004, under which a process for validating succession exists (Claims to peerage) but note that the rights exist anyway, and this process regulates a record (the Roll of Peerage), not the underlying right, which follows automatically from the underlying patent. It seems that some of the surviving Irish peerage holders have been through this process, some not. On the question of applications to the government for permission to accept a foreign title award, at least 9 applications have been made, all for UK knighthoods; as far as I can see, 7 were in some form authorised by the Irish Government, while 2 were submitted after the fact, and these were "noted" but not authorized as current rules simply don't provide for retrospective authorization. As I see, no peerage applications from any country have been received (and they could have been - Ireland has had Spanish, Polish and German nobles too, and Papal Counts - anyone for a certain Countess of 1916 fame, or our first, and for long only Cabinet-level, Arts minister?)...

And adding, as it seems I forgot to press return earlier - on the cessation of titles. Even in UK law, it is hard to end / extinguish titles. The UK Crown cannot undo its own Letters Patent, warrants or charters in this regard, and while the UK Parliament, being supreme, can, it has rarely acted on this. There was an act passed in WWI times, but the powers it grants have rarely been used (there was at least one instance, in 1919, and as it happens, all four peers involved had Ireland-related titles in their "portfolios"). Other laws provide for removal from the House of Lords, but this does not end a title, and is less relevant now (and in Ireland, for centuries, titles and Irish HoL membership were only partly in common). It's not even easy to give up a title - life peers can't, and inheritors have only 12 months from date of entitlement, or majority, to do so (as Tony Benn did). SeoR (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm abroad outside the EU, so don't have ready internet connection, so I'll add a little here. I'm happy to contribute in more detail if necessary on my return. In short, the titles on the peerage of Ireland (or any other order of nobility) or not recognised in the Irish constitution but nor are they prohibited; at the very least, they remain in common use for those few who use them. This is but one of a number of articles I found on a particular intervention by an Irish peer. They are used, so there's no need to qualify each one. Clarifying information on the page of Peerage of Ireland should be sufficient. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, replying to this delayed as I seem to get no notifications at all.

Thanks for your contribution to the conversation.

I do not see how the comparison with Russia and Ukraine is irrelevant. As you are interested in royal titles, are there any Russian titles of nobility in place in Ukraine?

At the end of the day, sovereignity of Ireland is completely under the hands of the Irish. You say that the jurisdiction is in the hands of the UK crown - I mean, have a look at the UN charter. Ireland is an independent sovereign nation. No other nation can claim jurisdiction or entitlement to any part of Ireland. You said " They were named after places, once upon a time" - What's changed that? What reference do you have to support that claim that it now has magically changed susbtance?

In terms of foreign companies, the analogy is a good one. These companies must operate under our jurisdiction and under our rule of law. Any company can claim to operate in Ireland, despite having never set foot in it, but it would be incorrect.

I appreciate keeping Wikipedia to the facts, which is why I made an account in the first place. What makes you draw the conclusion of "no, a successor does not take a new title, they assume the holding of a long extant title. Again, the Dail and Seanad could attempt to forbid heirs from taking up their titles, but they have never even debated this idea, never mind acted on it." The debate is not about new titles. It is about ACCEPTING titles. It is forbidden by the constitution for any citizen to ACCEPT a title. "No title of nobility or of honour may be accepted by any citizen except with the prior approval of the Government"

That is the principal fact for any current Anglo-Irish citizen.

"And, an important point, many holders are not Irish residents, some not even Irish citizens, so where would Irish jurisdiction come from for them? We have no exclusive rights over Irish place names."

Again, this does come to decolonisation and sovereignity. It is patently absurd to treat as factual the entitlement of positions of privilege, or positions of honour, based on the colonisation of Ireland. It's not factual. It's a fantasy game of make believe.

There are of course people who style themselves a certain way. I just don't see why on Wikipedia editors should bend over backwards to support self-flattering titles? It's factual to say that they are nonsense. It's not factual to say that any person is more deserving of a Wikipedia entry because of a stubborn role call of the popular crowd. Wikiejd2 (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to the discussion. On the Russia / Ukraine point, I have no idea in detail - my interests are in Irish history, in which the Norman and British Crown-derived peerages have intervened. But Russian Empire titles, as far as I recall general history, worked quite differently from British ones (noting that under Peter the Great, much of Russian society found its social rank codified, far beyond the aristocracy). And with so much distance and cultural difference, I really can't see the relevance.

Points about decolonisation and sovereignity are fine - like most people here, I suspect, I'm quite happy to live in a country where people are not held to be legally of different "class" simply because of accidents of birth - but such points, and the feelings held by me, you or any other editor, simply aren't relevant to the topic area. It is not about people who make up titles - anyone can do that, no one much will care, and they will not be mentioned here because of that. It's about people who objectively hold titles based on ancient bits of parchment, or whatever, which have factual existence, and are mentioned in sources. Merely being a member of the aristocracy, of any country, is not enough to be written up with an article any more (it was once so for some peerages), but it can contribute, and the Peerage of Ireland as a whole is substantial enough to have some coverage.

As to the link between titles and places, it is just a matter of naming. Older titles were land-bound but later ones were often nominal (the Baroness of Finchley did not receive so much as a square foot of Finchley when elevated to the peerage, for example). And a title can be linked to anywhere, and no, one country can't stop people from another country using placenames for their titles. We might frown, but that's all we could do. Likewise, anyone can say that titles are nonsense, and even some title holders have done so. But they still exist, with a whole body of law around them. Meantime, your point that a successor could be considered to be accepting a title is a possible view, but it is not the view taken by Irish authorities from 1922 to date (and legally a title descends, subject to a process to reject it afterwards), and so no bar applies to these titles continuing. Maybe the Oireachtas will someday act on this matter, but they have not done so yet.

I note your re-removal of the factual statement that no new titles have been created since 1922. That is not about the Constitution, it's about actions of the UK Crown, and it seems a useful thing to note. But OK, let someone find a better source for the statement, and then add it back. SeoR (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SeoR for your patient explanations to wikiejd2. To the mix, I’d only add that generally people are free to ‘self-identify’ as they please in Ireland. If you fancy styling yourself the Duke of Baluka (sic); no problem in Ireland. UK titles aren’t a subject of Irish law. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, "Count O'Kelly of Galway" is, notwithstanding the name, a title created 1720 in the nobility of the now long-defunct Austrian Low Countries, not of Ireland. That title never had anything to do with the peerage of Ireland even though it includes an Irish family name and refers to a county located in the west of the Republic of Ireland. One holder of the title was a Belgian Chess Grandmaster (died 1980 aged 69) and his title was recognized by, among others, Belgium, as ultimate successor to the Hapsburgian Low Countries. — Tonymec (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Factually wrong claim

The claim that "titles of peerage being regarded as merely courtesy titles" in the Republic of Ireland is factually wrong. The constitution says they cannot be created or accepted, but it is silent on the status of those already in existence. Nor does any law state they are merely courtesy titles. In some republics it is explicitly stated in law or in a constitution that a peerage is abolished. Ireland's law does not state that. So they are in a limbo. They are not a creation of the state, and not abolished by the state, nor is their status defined by the state. They just are there. Someone here keeps misinterpreting the constitution and reading into it something that it very definitely does not say. John Hearne, its author, working under de Valera, deliberately left them in that limbo state. 213.233.148.4 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peerage of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090730151256/http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf to http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

List standards

Target standards for Wikipedia Lists:

• 1. Prose; overall, features professional standards of writing.
• 2. Lede; has an engaging lede, of appropriate length (not trying to be an article) that introduces the subject, and defines the scope, and inclusion criteria.
• 3. Comprehensiveness: comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing where practical a complete set of items, but at least all of the major items. Where appropriate, has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information, of appropriate length, and taking account of any separate articles which might exist or be reasonably likely to exist given notability requirements, about selected items.
• 4. Structure; is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
• 5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style, including making suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and color, and with a minimal proportion of redlinked items, and has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions (and non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.96.68.130 (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Italics?

Do we know why some of the table entries are in italics? I didn't notice any annotation that provides an explanation. With concurrence, I'll get around to fixing them - eventually... jxm (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

sep

In the short list of recently extinct titles, what does "(sep)" mean? —Tamfang (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tamfang - I'm not really sure, I think it means that they used to be separate but became subsidiary titles upon the granting of a more senior title. For example, Earl of Egmont was created in 1733. The 1st Earl of Egmont was styled as Viscount Perceval. Upon the granting of the earldom, the viscountcy became a subsidiary title. I'm not really sure why it is there but this is just my assumption. DDMS123 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

So are these cases of "the earldom is extinct but the viscountcy passes to a distant kinsman"? —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tamfang - No, I think they are still extinct. I don't why it is showing a subsidiary title of an earldom. The viscountcies with "(sep)" should probably be removed from the extinct titles list as once the senior title goes extinct, so does the subsidiary titles. DDMS123 (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

In each of these cases, the first Earl was the first of each of his titles, so indeed they all went together when they went. But there plenty of examples of a lesser title surviving a higher one created later. —Tamfang (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

On yet another hand, one could question the value of a list of recently extinct titles. For Irish peerages there's nothing special about the HoL Act 1999! —Tamfang (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)