This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The article is not clear on this. Lucan was an Irish peer. They used to elect a few of their number as representative peers ( to sit in the Lords) as they were not automatically entitled to seats. No new Irish representative peers were elected since 1922, but existing ones kept their seats. The last one died in 1961. So how does Lucan have a seat? And if he has none, his heir can not have one either, not by right of being The Earl of Lucan. The 1999 Lords reform has nothing to do with this, as it does not allow Irish peers to be selected. Although there is a dodge for getting any hereditary in by simply also giving him a life peerage. The Guardian article cited seems to have simply got it wrong. 95.149.54.90 ( talk) 23:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Seems he may not have committed suicide after all: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17076512 Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Might be worth establishing career history since 1998. 109.154.19.165 ( talk) 17:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I would question whether the wording is POV, for instance "lying injured in hospital following the attack on her by her husband. The police took her from the hospital in order for her to defend her hard won custody and she was successful. There followed a sustained campaign by her sister and brother-in-law to obtain custody". 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 05:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
There is considerable confusion regarding the earl's father. The statement: "Lord Lucan was not declared legally dead by the High Court in 1999. Probate was granted on 11 August 1999 and is not an official confirmation of death for all purposes; nor does it operate as if it were a death certificate. The grant is valid for probate purposes only and is a technical requirement for the administration of the subject's estate" is wrong and contradictory.
The High Court did indeed declare Lucan dead - the exact wording being "Be it known that the Right Honourable Richard John Bingham, Seventh Earl of Lucan, of 72a Elizabeth Street, London SW1, died on or since the 8th day of November 1974". Probate is not granted unless the court accepts and declares that the testator is dead. Probate and death certificates are two different things, and ought not be compared. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 05:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
George is welcome to style himself 8th. Earl. This has little significance after 1999. Response from George: the title is Irish and had no significance as regards the UK since 1922.
That's an obviously ridiculous statement as until the reform of the House of Lords it gave a seat in the House of Lords. PhilomenaO'M ( talk) 06:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC.)
Any Irish peer would be surprised to hear his Irish title has no standing in the UK. The Crown has jurisdiction over all peerages from the now-Independent Irish Republic, they just aren't making any more since 1922. They used to elect some of their number to sit in the Lords, but that also stopped in 1922. Maybe that's what you are thinking of. The existing ones continued to sit in the Lords, though; the last one died off in 1961.
Did any of the Earls of Lucan ever serve as Irish representative peers? The article implies so, as the heir seeks his seat. Or does he get a writ, which proves he's an Earl, then discover he can't sit due to the 1999 Lords reform? This article needs a constitutional expert to sort it out, cause right now it's confusing. 95.149.54.90 ( talk) 22:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The article is not clear on this. Lucan was an Irish peer. They used to elect a few of their number as representative peers ( to sit in the Lords) as they were not automatically entitled to seats. No new Irish representative peers were elected since 1922, but existing ones kept their seats. The last one died in 1961. So how does Lucan have a seat? And if he has none, his heir can not have one either, not by right of being The Earl of Lucan. The 1999 Lords reform has nothing to do with this, as it does not allow Irish peers to be selected. Although there is a dodge for getting any hereditary in by simply also giving him a life peerage. The Guardian article cited seems to have simply got it wrong. 95.149.54.90 ( talk) 23:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Seems he may not have committed suicide after all: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17076512 Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Might be worth establishing career history since 1998. 109.154.19.165 ( talk) 17:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I would question whether the wording is POV, for instance "lying injured in hospital following the attack on her by her husband. The police took her from the hospital in order for her to defend her hard won custody and she was successful. There followed a sustained campaign by her sister and brother-in-law to obtain custody". 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 05:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
There is considerable confusion regarding the earl's father. The statement: "Lord Lucan was not declared legally dead by the High Court in 1999. Probate was granted on 11 August 1999 and is not an official confirmation of death for all purposes; nor does it operate as if it were a death certificate. The grant is valid for probate purposes only and is a technical requirement for the administration of the subject's estate" is wrong and contradictory.
The High Court did indeed declare Lucan dead - the exact wording being "Be it known that the Right Honourable Richard John Bingham, Seventh Earl of Lucan, of 72a Elizabeth Street, London SW1, died on or since the 8th day of November 1974". Probate is not granted unless the court accepts and declares that the testator is dead. Probate and death certificates are two different things, and ought not be compared. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 05:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
George is welcome to style himself 8th. Earl. This has little significance after 1999. Response from George: the title is Irish and had no significance as regards the UK since 1922.
That's an obviously ridiculous statement as until the reform of the House of Lords it gave a seat in the House of Lords. PhilomenaO'M ( talk) 06:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC.)
Any Irish peer would be surprised to hear his Irish title has no standing in the UK. The Crown has jurisdiction over all peerages from the now-Independent Irish Republic, they just aren't making any more since 1922. They used to elect some of their number to sit in the Lords, but that also stopped in 1922. Maybe that's what you are thinking of. The existing ones continued to sit in the Lords, though; the last one died off in 1961.
Did any of the Earls of Lucan ever serve as Irish representative peers? The article implies so, as the heir seeks his seat. Or does he get a writ, which proves he's an Earl, then discover he can't sit due to the 1999 Lords reform? This article needs a constitutional expert to sort it out, cause right now it's confusing. 95.149.54.90 ( talk) 22:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)