Talk:Manor of Northstead

Gerry Adams has not accepted the Position

Gerry Adams has not accepted the position. The Speakers Office has stated he has not accepted the position. Exiledone (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Speaker's Office stated that, yesterday, he had not applied for the appointment. Events have rather overtaken them since then. ninety:one

Looks like events have caught up with Cameron. Exiledone (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12292896

Please, read the article carefully. It says that Adams did not accept the appointment. It does not say that he wasn't appointed. He has been appointed, that is an undeniable fact, but he has chosen to "not accept" it. It makes no difference; he does not have to accept it. He has the ability by law to refuse to accept it, but he has not exercised this power. Please do not revert again without discussing. ninety:one 20:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Gerry Adams has officially been appointed to the post according to an announcement by HM treasury on 26 January 2010. Regardless of whether or not he "accepted" the appointment, he now holds the post. Is the proper title: Baron of the Manor of Northstead, with the powers of Crown Steward, High Sheriff and Crown Steward and Bailiff of Manor of Northstead? As a position of profit to the crown - it carries elevation to the House of Lords, temporarily as a Baron (whether accepted or refused or not is not relevant, and although no longer the right to sit there). The question arises as Gerard Adams, being elevated to the House of Lords and not yet having been superceded by the next persons to the office could not have stood for TD in Louth at that time? The Irish Constitution prohibits MP's and Lords from holding elected offices in Leinster house; however the procedure to remove a peerage has been used for Anglo Irish peers to be allowed to leave the Lords to stand for office. Monkety (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to "accept" appointment to the Manor of Northstead, nor to apply for it in order too be granted. The grant of the office is a function performed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he has done so in order to give effect to Gerry Adam's resignation. There is no other mechanism by which an MP can resign (see the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975). In any event, this is not relevant to a page on the manor of Northstead generally. Monkety (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC) No other mechanism - there are other positions of profit in the Army to the crown, what about Chiltern Hundreds or Master of the Tower of London, just to bring up two that stand out - are you suggesting there are no other mechanism as these have to be formally applied for, resigned, or granted by the Crown, which may have caused problems?

How to word the sentence that relates to the last appointee

This article has always mentioned who the current appointee is. However, recent events have made the wording of this much more contentious. I suggest we try to agree on a consensus version here before re-instating any mention of Adams in the article. To kick it off, I propose:

• After announcing his intention to resign from the United Kingdom Parliament to stand in the 2011 Irish General election, Gerry Adams was appointed to the office. Adams later stated the reports that he had "accepted" the appointment were "untrue".

I am, of course, fully open to all comments! ninety:one 12:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice, simple and unbiased :o) Conor86 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION NO LONGER NEEDED

With much releuctence (because it indicates personal research) I've cut the following

- the official book containing appointments to the Stewardship (lodged in The National Archives under catalogue reference E 197/1) indicates that Patrick Chalmers, MP for Montrose Burghs, was appointed to this office on 6 April 1842. His replacement (Joseph Hume) was elected on the 16th April.

Which Stewardship is here being referred to? If Chalmers' applied for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds - then Sir George Henry Rose, as the article claims, may well have been the first MP to apply for the Northstead stewardship in order to resign his seat.

Ned of the Hills (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This has now been clarified - the log book says Chalmers' was appointed to the Northstead post - but when the writ was moved for the seat he vacated it was said he had taken the Chiltern post. Good research it would seem by Paul1337.

Ned of the Hills (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I was a little confused by your recent edit; it's clearly original research and really doesn't belong in the article at all. ninety:one 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

An office of how much profit?

So, what does the stewardship pay? —Tamfang (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing. ("The unpaid and duty-less stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds became a convenient means by which MPs could resign during the life of a parliament... Originally there were many such offices of profit but just two, the Chiltern Hundreds and the Manor of Northstead, were retained as a means of resignation." - The Politics Today Companion to the British Constitution, ISBN 0-7190-5303-X, Colin Pilkington, page 35.) Though originally an "office of profit", it is nowadays one of two functionless posts that legislation designates for allowing an MP to resign. — Richardguk (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Let's start a discussion on the infobox. I would say that the infobox should be there simply under WP:INFOBOX as it provided "A quick and convenient summary of the key facts". Even if the political post infobox was used, it still fulfilled the same purpose. The main objection appears to be claiming that it is not a political post. However the fact is that it can only be held by one person and is recognized by the government as a position but besides, that doesn't negate any reason for removing the infobox. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If the infobox was really providing a "quick and convenient summary of the key facts", it would surely have pointed out to the reader that the post is now meaningless? Who holds it at any one point in time now, let alone what they look like and when they were 'appointed', doesn't make a blind bit of difference to anything in the real world. That is why the inclusion of a 'policial post' infobox and a 'current holder' section with all that entailed, is worthless at best, deceptive at worst. This article is fully understandable without the information I removed. Whoever wants to know who the current holder is (and why would they anyway, once they know it's not a post at all), need only look at the last entry in the article List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

For a start, it isn't meaningless as it is one of the only two ways that an MP can legally vacate his position. It does make a difference as it means that that person has been disqualified from being an MP. The political post part of it is the type of infobox, it doesn't show up in the article (And besides, it is a political post anyway as the holder is appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer). I'm sure if people wanted to know who the holder was they could very well go to the list but it makes it simpler for them if this page just tells them straight off who it is rather than let them navigate another link. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Where in the infobox or current holder section was it explained that the importance of the post in the present day is that it's "one of the only two ways that an MP can legally vacate his position" or that the 'holder/incumbent' "has been disqualified from being an MP"? I haven't made the reader any less aware of those facts by removing the infobox or current holder section, that information is still in the article. It's beyond obvious that there's no demand out there for people to be able to rapidly find out who the last MP to step down during a parliamentary term was, and even if there was, using a 'political post' infobox that confuses readers into thinking it's a real post is perhaps the stupidest way imaginable to do that. If you need any further proof of that, click on the website field of the infobox - it sends you not to a page dedicated to the 'post', but merely a glossary page explaining the term (which, if the reader has already read this article, is of absolutely no use to them whatsoever). How stupid is that? Very. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you know for sure there is no demand? No-one does know 1005 the answer to that. You have to treat Wikipedia pages as if people who come across it know nothing about the subject. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree, but discussion will hopefully continue at Template talk:Infobox political post where I've started an RFC. Note that I've moved the infobox and all the info about the political post to a separate article, Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

When adding an infobox is contentious en difficult, it seems better NOT to add one. The Banner talk 19:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)