This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The below comments were moved from talk:Peerage of the Commonwealth of Australia
I am not convinced that there has ever been a peerage of the Commonwealth of Australia as opposed to British peerages. Certainly if there was, this article should explain it and not just list recipients. Also the terminology of "Baron of Y" is, I think, wrong. It should be "Baron X of Y". -- Bduke 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought of going down the path of Baron x of y, but some of these peerages have since changed hands and I only padded each peerage with the 1st recipient, not the 2nd etc. Although part of the honours of Monarchy of Australia (that we happen to share with the British), I have put together a list of the titles that are wholly Australian. All the recipients were granted dual peerages, an Australian one and a UK one (probably because we don't have a House of Lords). Similar peerages appear for New Zealand, Canada and other Commonwealth Countries that use the British Monarch as their Head of State. In this article I thought I'd describe what I found when looking at the British peerages as the list specifically states that all these as "peerage of the Commonwealth of Australia". (Not to be confused with an 19th century term of Bunyip Aristocracy attributed to Wentworth about Jacob Hagan's plans for an Australian House of Lords. I'll try and expand the article at some point. petedavo 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The title is a bit misleading. Notwithstanding the dual Australian-British "territorial designations", as they're called, the baronies and so forth were, as far as I know, all created solely in the Peerage of the United Kingdom and the holders were eligible to sit in the UK House of Lords until 1999, barring any issues of naturalization. (This wasn't precisely a novelty; a number of Irish peers were created with English territorial designations, owing to the use of the Irish peerage as a dumping ground for British political jobbers.) Furthermore, baronetcies are a bit betwixt and between; they're hereditary titles, but not peerages. Perhaps it would be better to move the article to something like Hereditary titles created for Australians, which would encompass both. That said, kudos on compiling the list, which is quite interesting. Choess 03:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Good start, but I have a few issues with this article.
While Not peers, the Baronetcies are hereditary titles and as such this is probably a suitable place for them to be located (with an explanation). Not putting them here will probably just creat confusions.
Does this mean the only currently active hereditary titles is the Clarke Baronetcy? Deathlibrarian ( talk) 10:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Having never heard of this person, I did some digging. This tells us that Sir Robert Lowe Hall (d. 17 September 1998) was created Baron Roberthall, of Silverspear in Queensland and of Trenance in the County of Cornwall [U.K. LIFE PEER] on 28 October 1969. This confirms those details. Note: It's Silverspear, not Silverspur.
So, he's apparently a Briton who was given a Life Peerage whose title includes an Australian place. This puts him into a category of his own. I'll see if I can create a new category. -- JackofOz ( talk) 01:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Such honours included peerages, which at that time were all hereditary Eregli bob ( talk) 11:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"at that time" means what time ?? Most of the Australian peers that spring quickly to mind ( Lord Bruce, Lord Forest, Lod Casey ) were ennobled after the invention of "life peerages".
I can't quite see the relevance of this to the article. The monarch is not a peer, and while there is a " Queen of Australia", Elizabeth II is not an Australian. Her titles etc are amply covered in the Q of A article. Any objections to removing this section? -- JackofOz ( talk) 23:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
"The only lawfully correct title for the Queen - as it underpins the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act 1900 (see covering clause 2) - is the first title. The second one cannot be, as Queen Elizabeth cannot legally be the queen of two separate realms or countries; the first title already contains Australia, as Australia is a possession of the Crown under the Act of Settlement 1701 (and this Act cannot be changed except with the concurrence of the whole Commonwealth). Additionally, the Queen takes a Coronation Oath (in the Coronation Oath Act) referring to the same basic elements as the first title, and (implicitly) swears to uphold the various constitutional statutes such as the Act of Settlement. This is what gives legitimacy to the first title and makes the second title lawfully invalid (not just redundant). As a side note, the term "Commonwealth" has a completely different meaning in both titles as the first is part of a British Act and the second is part of an Australian Act."
Petedavo talk contributions 12:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Clive Latham Baillieu, 1st Baron Baillieu was born and went to school in Australia and later moved to the UK, where he was granted an hereditary peerage, but with a reference to Australia in the title ("Sefton in the Commonwealth of Australia"). Does this mean that Stanley Bruce has to give up his "sole Australian hereditary peer" claim, or do we consider that Baillieu ceased being an Australian some time after he left, despite his Australian-sounding title? -- JackofOz ( talk) 05:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The 7th Earl lives in Sydney. He's probably worth a mention in the article. 203.31.52.137 ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The policy seems to be a little opposite in the article here. Leefkrust22 ( talk) 06:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I was surfing WP and i stumbled upon a very short article about Malcolm Murray, 12th Earl of Dunmore, the article states that he is "a native-born Australian and lives in Tasmania". He is not mentioned in this article so I can only assume he was missed or he does not hold Australian citizenship although he "lives in Tasmania". Regards, Nford24 ( talk) 19:22, 10 March 2012 (AEST)
What do we do with James Atkin, Baron Atkin? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
... such as the Countess of Harewood. She is certainly a countess, but is she a peeress? I rather think not. She just married well. We could also be including Maie Casey, Baroness Casey and all the other wives. But we never have, because spouses are not peer/esses in their own right. Is it proposed we change this? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a non-sequitur to conflate peers with "notable foreign men". Are you suggesting that lots of Aussie women married peers? I don't think you're correct if that's your contention. There is no need to change the title of the article. This article already contains governors-general who were not Australian, so why not attack their inclusion? They are not Australian peers or baronets. Neither were Lords Dugan or Birdwood. In the same way as those non-Australian peers are relevant to the topic discussed in the article, just because somebody is not a peeress suo jure does not mean she is irrelevant to the topic either. By the way, nobody ever said that marrying a peer makes someone a peeress. GSTQ ( talk) 04:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Your objection holds true for both other people listed in "Other", so if we're going to move one, all three should be moved. But where? Forrest was never created a peer. Baden-Powell is not a peer but probably will be one day. Perhaps the best approach is to create a new section for Australians who have a connexion with a peerage but do not (or did not) hold the peerage themselves. GSTQ ( talk) 05:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I've recently come across various articles about various non-british nobles/royalty who either live/d in Australia or married an Australian, like a von bulow, a Princess Radziwill, the son of the last Nizam of Hyderabad, a Crown Princess of Albania etc. is there any interest of adding a section here? Australia's tenuous noble connections were more than the british. Siegfried Nugent ( talk) 11:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I would argue that John Forrest's title should be included (even if only as a courtesy title):
What shall we do with What shall we do with Mary and her offspring? Petedavo talk contributions 06:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this pages title is counter-intuitive. "Peers" can mean anything.. It should be perhaps like, "Australian formal titles" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.42.44 ( talk) 15:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The below comments were moved from talk:Peerage of the Commonwealth of Australia
I am not convinced that there has ever been a peerage of the Commonwealth of Australia as opposed to British peerages. Certainly if there was, this article should explain it and not just list recipients. Also the terminology of "Baron of Y" is, I think, wrong. It should be "Baron X of Y". -- Bduke 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought of going down the path of Baron x of y, but some of these peerages have since changed hands and I only padded each peerage with the 1st recipient, not the 2nd etc. Although part of the honours of Monarchy of Australia (that we happen to share with the British), I have put together a list of the titles that are wholly Australian. All the recipients were granted dual peerages, an Australian one and a UK one (probably because we don't have a House of Lords). Similar peerages appear for New Zealand, Canada and other Commonwealth Countries that use the British Monarch as their Head of State. In this article I thought I'd describe what I found when looking at the British peerages as the list specifically states that all these as "peerage of the Commonwealth of Australia". (Not to be confused with an 19th century term of Bunyip Aristocracy attributed to Wentworth about Jacob Hagan's plans for an Australian House of Lords. I'll try and expand the article at some point. petedavo 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The title is a bit misleading. Notwithstanding the dual Australian-British "territorial designations", as they're called, the baronies and so forth were, as far as I know, all created solely in the Peerage of the United Kingdom and the holders were eligible to sit in the UK House of Lords until 1999, barring any issues of naturalization. (This wasn't precisely a novelty; a number of Irish peers were created with English territorial designations, owing to the use of the Irish peerage as a dumping ground for British political jobbers.) Furthermore, baronetcies are a bit betwixt and between; they're hereditary titles, but not peerages. Perhaps it would be better to move the article to something like Hereditary titles created for Australians, which would encompass both. That said, kudos on compiling the list, which is quite interesting. Choess 03:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Good start, but I have a few issues with this article.
While Not peers, the Baronetcies are hereditary titles and as such this is probably a suitable place for them to be located (with an explanation). Not putting them here will probably just creat confusions.
Does this mean the only currently active hereditary titles is the Clarke Baronetcy? Deathlibrarian ( talk) 10:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Having never heard of this person, I did some digging. This tells us that Sir Robert Lowe Hall (d. 17 September 1998) was created Baron Roberthall, of Silverspear in Queensland and of Trenance in the County of Cornwall [U.K. LIFE PEER] on 28 October 1969. This confirms those details. Note: It's Silverspear, not Silverspur.
So, he's apparently a Briton who was given a Life Peerage whose title includes an Australian place. This puts him into a category of his own. I'll see if I can create a new category. -- JackofOz ( talk) 01:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Such honours included peerages, which at that time were all hereditary Eregli bob ( talk) 11:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"at that time" means what time ?? Most of the Australian peers that spring quickly to mind ( Lord Bruce, Lord Forest, Lod Casey ) were ennobled after the invention of "life peerages".
I can't quite see the relevance of this to the article. The monarch is not a peer, and while there is a " Queen of Australia", Elizabeth II is not an Australian. Her titles etc are amply covered in the Q of A article. Any objections to removing this section? -- JackofOz ( talk) 23:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
"The only lawfully correct title for the Queen - as it underpins the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act 1900 (see covering clause 2) - is the first title. The second one cannot be, as Queen Elizabeth cannot legally be the queen of two separate realms or countries; the first title already contains Australia, as Australia is a possession of the Crown under the Act of Settlement 1701 (and this Act cannot be changed except with the concurrence of the whole Commonwealth). Additionally, the Queen takes a Coronation Oath (in the Coronation Oath Act) referring to the same basic elements as the first title, and (implicitly) swears to uphold the various constitutional statutes such as the Act of Settlement. This is what gives legitimacy to the first title and makes the second title lawfully invalid (not just redundant). As a side note, the term "Commonwealth" has a completely different meaning in both titles as the first is part of a British Act and the second is part of an Australian Act."
Petedavo talk contributions 12:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Clive Latham Baillieu, 1st Baron Baillieu was born and went to school in Australia and later moved to the UK, where he was granted an hereditary peerage, but with a reference to Australia in the title ("Sefton in the Commonwealth of Australia"). Does this mean that Stanley Bruce has to give up his "sole Australian hereditary peer" claim, or do we consider that Baillieu ceased being an Australian some time after he left, despite his Australian-sounding title? -- JackofOz ( talk) 05:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The 7th Earl lives in Sydney. He's probably worth a mention in the article. 203.31.52.137 ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The policy seems to be a little opposite in the article here. Leefkrust22 ( talk) 06:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I was surfing WP and i stumbled upon a very short article about Malcolm Murray, 12th Earl of Dunmore, the article states that he is "a native-born Australian and lives in Tasmania". He is not mentioned in this article so I can only assume he was missed or he does not hold Australian citizenship although he "lives in Tasmania". Regards, Nford24 ( talk) 19:22, 10 March 2012 (AEST)
What do we do with James Atkin, Baron Atkin? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
... such as the Countess of Harewood. She is certainly a countess, but is she a peeress? I rather think not. She just married well. We could also be including Maie Casey, Baroness Casey and all the other wives. But we never have, because spouses are not peer/esses in their own right. Is it proposed we change this? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a non-sequitur to conflate peers with "notable foreign men". Are you suggesting that lots of Aussie women married peers? I don't think you're correct if that's your contention. There is no need to change the title of the article. This article already contains governors-general who were not Australian, so why not attack their inclusion? They are not Australian peers or baronets. Neither were Lords Dugan or Birdwood. In the same way as those non-Australian peers are relevant to the topic discussed in the article, just because somebody is not a peeress suo jure does not mean she is irrelevant to the topic either. By the way, nobody ever said that marrying a peer makes someone a peeress. GSTQ ( talk) 04:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Your objection holds true for both other people listed in "Other", so if we're going to move one, all three should be moved. But where? Forrest was never created a peer. Baden-Powell is not a peer but probably will be one day. Perhaps the best approach is to create a new section for Australians who have a connexion with a peerage but do not (or did not) hold the peerage themselves. GSTQ ( talk) 05:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I've recently come across various articles about various non-british nobles/royalty who either live/d in Australia or married an Australian, like a von bulow, a Princess Radziwill, the son of the last Nizam of Hyderabad, a Crown Princess of Albania etc. is there any interest of adding a section here? Australia's tenuous noble connections were more than the british. Siegfried Nugent ( talk) 11:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I would argue that John Forrest's title should be included (even if only as a courtesy title):
What shall we do with What shall we do with Mary and her offspring? Petedavo talk contributions 06:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this pages title is counter-intuitive. "Peers" can mean anything.. It should be perhaps like, "Australian formal titles" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.42.44 ( talk) 15:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)