Talk:British nobility/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nobility vs. peerage

I created this page as there wasn't really an article that brought all the various articles on this subject together, and also the UK was one of the few countries that has a nobility not to have a Nobility of X style article. This page I guess will be a kinda starting point for anyone researching this subject, as I was today, and I found it very hard to get what I wanted, as although the infomation is there it isn't linked together. Grunners 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked at the Peerage article and it has left me wondering whether we need a separate article on the nobility. Rjm at sleepers 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I rather think we do need this seperate page. There are forms of nobility in Britian that are not peerages. Examples include any Scottish armiger, Scottish feudal barons, feudal earls and fuedal lords, Scottish lairds, Clan chiefs and English lords of the manor (a very minor form of nobility granted). The act of granting arms in Scotland actually enobles the grantee. To not have this page disenfranchises these people. fr33kman -s- 16:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've only come to the article to learn about what the meaning of British nobility is today, for example being directed from articles on modern British peerage.

As we seek contemporary definitions, for today, Peerage is still today a contemporary phenomenon. Although the identity of what peerage constitutes has changed radically since Blair's adjustments to the Upper House. In basic terms, before then, Peers officially were held to be unelected rulers, a conceptual part of the system which makes laws - statutes in government - and indeed the part which theoretically had the most or overriding power generally for decisions in the Kingdom (though unused). In theory, the Peers really were "The Upper House".

Since Blair's changes, what Peerage means is kind of the opposite in terms of official conceptual function. (Meaning the official theoretical function, which before still contained the latent suggestion of possible potential, practical power still. While the function in practice may not be seen to have changed much, if at all significantly.) The Peerage system is now only, at its greatest extent of power, an unelected advisory or check system used by democratically elected politicians with no actual power of its own whatsoever at the end of the day. If elected politicians in the House of Commons choose to ignore the House of Lords' advice for any of their own reasons, there is no legal compulsion which can question that. Thus Peers are political advisers within government, without the power to control or affect legal decisions beyond that.

Descriptions of the Peerage system are contextualised within British Nobility, and one is referred to this article.

However, again, Peerage is still, a modern contemporary phenomenon, even if all vestiges of actual legal power over any person, conceptual, theoretical (and potential) or practical, by Peers has been removed. The Peers are still a phenomenon of governmental process, albeit without any official control or power of its own. One can easily identify that they have a function within legal process.

Now, to then seek to make a basic definition of the modern day Peerage system within a context of British nobility, is going to be very confusing and misleading indeed and probably incorrect.

It seems to me there is no function or meaning, or even thus really existence, of modern day British nobility. There is only one, solitary exception to this, it being utterly distinct as really the only identifiable meaning within contemporary British nobility, and indeed even more or less negligible in itself (and further never used so even arguable in itself). Of course, this is the power in the Head of State, the Queen or King alone having a tiny, tiny amount of the most limited legal powers, the residual powers of the Royal Prerogative. We are told by constitutionalists, a key element being the monarch's non-politicial identity as by constitutional laws, the residual powers can only occur in very limited and very rare kinds situations (even if ever they would occur). For example in dissolving government where a government have been shown to be too unpopular in Parliament to remain, yet refuse to withdraw for an election.

Does the term 'nobility' imply legal power or control over other persons? I think many people, especially those from outside the UK who are not well familiar with the legal systems, would assume so.

However, there is nothing in this article to highlight that British Nobility, with the exception of the tiny, unused residual powers of the monarch's Royal Prerogative, have no power, no legal control, no status whatsoever stemming from ruling in any way, indeed no identity connected with the ability to rule or control or make any official decisions.

One wants to learn what is the meaning of British Nobility in a contemporary sense, since one is not examining an article entitled "Historical definition of British Nobility". yet this article only concerns itself with past associations or meanings of British Nobility. Indeed, it confusingly links the modern day advisorial Peerage system in government with a definition of what British Nobility is. (Yet definitions of modern Peerage attempt to establish the modern meaning of Peerage itself within a context of British Nobility, which I have pointed out is given no identifiable meaning whatsoever for today of itself.)

I am sure that there millions of non-British people, perhaps even a billion or more, who at some stage during their lives somehow assume that British Nobility are, today, the ruling, controlling people in some context. (There will also, no doubt, be some confused British people who, somehow, in some distant sense kind of have a similar seeming notion which they can't explain.) I've heard people say that the British Nobility (whoever they are, whatever that means) are "over the law", and that the law relies on them, even though minions seems to make it in the Parliament chamber publicly. These people see references to Dukes, Barons, Lords, Earls etc. even today and consistently are presented with publications which talk about the "aristocracy", mentioning all sorts of titled persons, often as they associate with other, foreign, titled people.

However, one has no idea if there is any meaning or identity whatsoever in the term aristocracy in the UK, or the terms British Nobility. Constantly people are writing in ways which seem to suggest that it seems that there is some underlying meaning. In truth, it is all a kind of childish parody or social funfair of bizarre ideas, but happens never described as such. So, people accept the parody as the truth, which it certainly is not.

But there is no meaning with the singular exception of the Queen's potential, kind of basic administrative, emergency powers to have the democracy functioning smoothly when it has become ditched.

In a contemporary sense, the term British Nobility has no meaning. It seems to refer to persons whose ancestors where once of a position which gave them some legal power over others, although a very long time ago. People suggest that, today, these descendants retain titles - but even that is not true. It may be true in terms of heritage, but heritage only identifies the past, and in no sense the meaning of the present, it seems. What these people have are defunct titles, not titles, as the titles have no contemporary social meaning, nor bear any actual modern status whatsoever. They do not have titles with any meaning at all. Because there are no such titles today with any meaning, beyond the monarch and the monarch's close family, of whom one or more will become the monarch (thus gaining the most tiny functional, emergency administrative powers). (Again, this is excepting the Peerage titles of those who have no decision making capacity themselves, members of the House of Lords who are modern day advisers to elected government ).

So, there are no titles, only defunct titles, only historical titles that had a meaning in the past but none today. Duchess x of y of course, today, is clearly not a Duchess, because there are no Duchesses (setting aside social meanings from the governments' advisers in the Upper House of the Houses of Parliament - again, though, persons with no legal power of themselves). Peerage advisers aside, where the word Duchess today only means, for example, "my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great (etc) grandfather" was a Duke exercising power in a certain realm once, or voting capacity within government", it cannot be held as anything which means anything. When to say "there is a Baron" is a meaning of "that person's distant relative was once a Baron with legal powers" is a contradiction in itself. This renders modern society into some sort of sleeping cartoon, entrenched in ignoring the present but celebrating the past as if it were the present. It would be similar as suggesting today that Ronald Reagan's children are high legal executives, or functionally distinct from other persons in their own, unique social capacity and identity. Yet that's not a true thing to say of those people even to any tiny extent. And then, for British Nobility we really are talking about power such a long time before Ronald Reagan.

I see the article makes no claims for contemporary meanings of British Nobility. But for people to claim, then, that the article is correct and appropriate is only to claim that "everyone knows" that British Nobility has no contemporary meaning whatsoever, being an obsolete phenomenon but for some government advisers without power.

The current article describes a historical situation, with no mention or reference whatsoever to that its subject appears to be completely obsolete. It does not tackle that people related to the monarch today are, for example, given what appear to be new titles within British Nobility at certain times, for example the Duchess of Cambridge in marrying the monarch's son. The article makes no attempt to try to explain that these titles, functionally (and so, wouldn't that be in any sense at all) are absolutely meaningless within our legal and constitutional framework, except to attatch some identity to the idea of that a person may be in line to be the monarch, and hold the tiny, residual, administrative powers of the Royal Prerogative in emergency situations.

Surely an article about British Nobility ought to at least attempt to point out that there is more or less no meaning in that term today, in any contemporary sense which indeed makes sense. Because, I believe, many, many, many people around the world are not aware of that.

I'm not the person to do it because my historical knowledge is limited, and I have little recent knowledge on the history of the British Nobility.

An article giving an historical, obsolete definition, without making clear that the modern definition of its subject is more or less obsolete itself, seems not an appropriate article.

The basic point is that, while there was a British Nobility, there is no British Nobility, more or less fully, today. The term has no contemporary meaning because there is no such contemporary phenomenon whatsoever, despite that people seem to read all about indication of it as if it were an actual phenomenon in newspapers, magazines, internet articles every week. They are reading a pretence, untruths perhaps. I think any decent, modern encyclopedia ought to make that clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.5.68 (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin request - the above post violates WP:FORUM in a major way, is nothing but the IP's opinion, and includes no Reliable Source discussions for the improvement of the article - please 'hat.' 50.111.34.241 (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. While I think that the post is erroneous in its depiction of British nobility, its role and history, the post does make specific recommendations for the article's improvement (i.e., requests that the article more explicitly clarify that today "nobles" lack the influence formerly associated with peerage titles). On a talk page, posters are free to make recommendations or argue for an interpretation of article content without providing reliable sources. FactStraight (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hello,

my comment does not contain an academic reference.

I rather need an advice.Can some of you give names of gentelmen clubs or countryside places or leisure points where i could possibly meet members of british nobilty?

I belong to the french one,coming from an old french-canadian family and would like to find a beloved husband among british nobiilty.

May be there is even a specific introduction services?-I do not know their names as I live in France.

Thank you for your advice to globeonnet@live.comCalypso1020 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No such thing as British nobility

Neither the United Kingdom (1801 to present), nor any of its predecessor realms in interest - including the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1801), the Kingdom of Ireland (1542-1801), the Kingdom of England (c. 9th century - 1707) or the Kingdom of Scots (c. 843-1707), etc., etc. has ever had a nobility - with one exception.

England had an all-Norman noble class from the Conquest of 1066 until shortly after the promulgation of Magna Charta. The subsequent creation of Parliament (specifically, the House of Lords - which is a few centuries older than the House of Commons) resulted in abolition of the noble class, which was replaced by the peerage.

The rest of the nations that eventually came to constitute the United Kingdom never had a formally developed nobility but they evolved the same system of peerage that eventually replaced the nobility in England.

More to the point, this article is not about British Nobility but it is explicitly about the British, English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh peerages. So, calling it "British nobility" - especially considering the Scots arguably are not British, and the Irish definitely are not British - is entirely and utterly inappropriate. The Scottish and Irish peerage systems have always operated separately from the British peerage system, and continue to do so today. In particular, the Act of Union of 1707 provided that Scotland retained jurisdiction over its own system of heraldry and peerage, separately from the rest of the country (along with its own separate systems of law and education).

This article should be renamed "British Peerage" and the non-British elements removed; or the content of this article should be merged into any existing article on the British peerage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.146.98 (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

71.198.146.98 (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

British is a generic term for all the component states of the United Kingdom. As such people who are Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish (or Irish prior to Irish independence) and English are "British". This is in the same sense that Texans, Oregonians and New Yorkers are "American". There is no Welsh peerage and the Irish peerage is British. The Irish peerage are dignities of the British crown and are not creations of the Republic of Ireland. The peerages of Scotland and Ireland do not operate separately from the British peerage system but are integral parts of it. After the Act of Union in 1707 new titles were created in the new peerage of Great Britain and since 1801 the Peerage of the United Kingdom. All of these peerages: of England, of Scotland, of Ireland, of Great Britain & of the United Kingdom are integral to and compose the British peerage. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference for scope

It would be useful to have an authoritative reference or two documenting that British nobility includes non-peers, and pointing out exactly where it begins and ends. -- Beland (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The British nobility does not consist of two entities, the peerage and the landed gentry

Quote "The British nobility consists of two entities, the peerage and the landed gentry." This is quite wrong. This British nobility is made up of titled nobles. The landed gentry are just that - gentry, they are not considered noble. The exception could be Scotland where Lairds could be regarded as the noblesse (lesser nobility), but as a general rule the nobility are only people who are titled, i.e. Barons up to Dukes. Historically if you were a hereditary land owner and made your living from land ownership without having to work for a wage or salary you were part of the landed gentry. Being noble is an entirely different status and in the British system correlates with holding a peerage title. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• See the clarification below under Talk:British nobility#Edits as to the existence of the untitled nobility in a legal sense in Britain. It is right, however, to note that in everyday speech nobility only means the peerage to the general public and that this is how the term is used commonly. Editor8888 (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits

I have edited the article as the original author (while well intentioned) is not overly familiar with this subject. I have done this as many of the errors pointed out in the talk page as far back as 2009 have not been addressed. Please don't revert any of my changes without discussing it here first. Thanks 121.73.7.84 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• These edits are generally fine, however they rendered the article ignorant of the untitled nobility. This source refers:. That Britain has an untitled nobility can be seen in that CILANE recognises British armigerous families in the broader sense of being noble (as in being "known" to the monarch) and such families are represented through the Commission and Association for Armigerous Families of Great Britain, which is also recognised by icocregister.org. It is often said that the nobility enjoys hereditary privileges; that of the untitled nobility is position in the formal orders of precedence. Amendments to clarify these points have been made, supported by sources. Editor8888 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't suppose CILANE has any official legal status in the United Kingdom and I am not sure if it has any official status in the European Union either. It looks more like a private institution like many of its affiliate associations such as the Swedish House of Nobility for example. As far as I can tell, the only legal distinction of the gentry in Britain is the right to a coat of arms, but this does not qualify the members of that class as nobility, which, in the strictest sense, includes only hereditary peers and their immediate families (i.e. wives/widows and children). 161.24.19.112 (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Colonies (US)

If I understand it correctly there where no formal legal privileges in the UK, but only peerages. In practice the elites where treated very differently socialy and by the justice system. Voting rigths where limited to tax-payers / property owners. I suppose peerages are only coupled with land in the four kingdoms and in the colonies, no new peerages where created. So the United States where free from nobility/peerages even before independance. Powerful lords had properties/plantations in the colonies. I suppose they to choose sides and if they remained loyal to the crown, they probably lost their properties. Is their any information about this?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Correct--there were no British peers based in colonial America; there were a few visitors One peer did moved to Virginia--see Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron where he owned vast estates. He was an elderly Loyalist in the Am Rev but kept very quiet and was tolerated (he was protected by George Washington). A handful of Americans were knighted for military service. One American colonial was named peer ("baronet") in 1746-- William Pepperrell--he visited England once and was honored by the king, then returned to Boston. To look at the scholarship start with Arthur M. Schlesinger, “The Aristocracy in Colonial America.” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, vol. 74, 1962, pp. 3–21. first page online here -- email me for a full copy at rjensen @ uic.edu Also read François-Joseph Ruggiu, "Extraction, wealth and industry: The ideas of noblesse and of gentility in the English and French Atlantics (17th–18th centuries)." History of European Ideas 34.4 (2008): 444-455 online free here. Rjensen (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)