![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | House of Lords is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 28, 2004. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Adding the "ref improve" tag because this article suffers from an embarrassing lack of sources. Some sections have no sources at all while others are just generally lacking. For such a key institution in British politics, its page should be well sourced. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 01:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be some inconsistencies on this article. The article constantly references the amount of hereditary peers as either 90 or 92. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.226.53 ( talk) 04:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This edit restored a sourced claim about the institution's supposed full and formal name. However, the actual sources cited for this are simply two petitions presented by members of the public, who address the House in such terms. As with the same point for the Commons - where at least there is an official source recommending this construction for petitions - it's not clear whether we can claim that this is therefore the official, formal name of the institution; it's just a form of address apparently used for specific contexts. I can't find much non-WP derived or non-petition based online evidence for this name. We surely need something that explicitly claims this is the formal name of the place before we assert as much here. N-HH talk/ edits 16:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I count 17 Non-affiliated members of the House of Lords not 19. Any consensus to change? Francium12 ( talk) 15:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The box on the right groups Peers as HM Government or HM (ml) Opposition. The way this has been done contains the two incumbent parties as the government, with everybody else as the opposition, including the Lords Spiritual and the Crossbenchers. I'm not sure whether this was done to reflect their function or their seating arrangements, but either way, it makes no sense that members of an established church would always be opposing its supreme leader. As for their seating, they always sit on the Government side of the House. Although non-aligned Peers could notionally be said to always be in opposition, I don't think this is completely accurate for Crossbenchers, given their unique roles and the fact that they don't sit on Government nor Opposition benches at all: they have their own benches aligned across the House, facing the Lord Speaker.
It might be better if we re-grouped the list according to seating arrangements. So the incumbent parties and Lords Spiritual are on the Government side, the Opposition and non-aligned Peers are on the Opposition side, and a separate grouping is created for the Crossbenchers. MaxwellEdisonPhD ( talk) 00:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The image: House of Lords current.svg.png is out of date because it shows UKIP as having only 2Lords, David Stevens, Baron Stevens of Ludgate has since joined the party from the Crossbenchers. Editors seem determined to constantly change the 3 back to a 2 because the image displayed has 2 purple seats. The image is wrong and is clearly causing too much confusion for editors to cope with, therefore it should be left out of the article until some1 decides to amend it! Just to confirm UKIP's 3 lords are: David Verney, 21st Baron Willoughby de Broke, Malcolm Pearson, Baron Pearson of Rannoch and David Stevens, Baron Stevens of Ludgate. Please see that this mistake is not made again. If we are to include an image it must be correct, as I say it is clearly causing too much confusion. 130.88.114.129 ( talk) 20:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a list of UK peers without citizenship ?
( User talk:Siyac) 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This is now being repeatedly added to the lead, despite my having queried and reverted its initial inclusion. The NYT piece cited here does not mention the term and it is not up to individual WP editors to claim that cited sources "cannot actually refer to" something that they very explicitly do refer to or correct those sources as to what they "evidently" meant, when they said no such thing. I'm no expert on all this archaic and arcane twaddle, and maybe the NYT is not the best source for this sort of thing, but searching for "agnatic accession" doesn't reveal anything in this context. Plus, as far as I can tell, agnatic refers to the very general principle of descent through the male line; it is not specifically about male vs female heirs, which is a different point. I'm happy to have this explained to me and be proved wrong, but can the person adding this make that effort? Thanks. N-HH talk/ edits 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the consistency point, but the addition of "The" in front every "Lord/Baroness .." reads very oddly and over-formally. It's not how you normally see these people described or titled. And if anything, we were more or less consistent in not using it before that edit – removing it from Hill rather than adding it to all the others seems the more obvious option on those grounds alone. N-HH talk/ edits 17:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
In the section "20th century", the following appeared: "Asquith then proposed that the powers of the House of Lords be severely curtailed." Prior to that sentence there was no identification whatsoever of "Asquith" or his role. I have changed the page to read "Prime Minister H. H. Asquith then proposed..." with appropriate link to the H. H. Asquith page. Akld guy ( talk) 22:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The current seating plan is a fine one but it isn't symetrical (it is difficult to visualise the difference between both sides when it is chopped off on the bottom right). I've tried many times to render it symetrically and this is my latest attempt. Here they are side by side:
I can easily convert the rounded squares to the square format as is currently used. I've added the same discussion to the house of commons talk page Any comments?
Shabidoo | Talk 02:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
House of Lords. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I want to add the above statement to the article. I tweeted this graph yesterday [4] - would it count as "original research" if I sourced the data from Wikipedia? best, Sunil060902 ( talk) 22:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Queen Victoria's second son, Alfred, was born in England and became the Duke of Edinburgh. Then when his uncle died in 1893, he inherited another dukedom: Saxe-Coburg Gotha; Thus, he became a regent of a (German State) foreign power in allegiance to the German Emperor, "intent on challenging England's supremacy as the foremost world power". In 1893, he is stated as the first person in recorded history to quit the Privy Council of his own volition, in 1893, he also relinquished his seat in the House of Lords.
Would the rules of membership of the (1893) House of Lords have continued to accept Prince Alfred as a member under such circumstances? Did he jump or was he pushed? Stephen2nd ( talk) 00:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Please can we clarify how " {{ HOLtotal}} " (see "edit" for code) is worked out, and potentially provide a source? 81.132.7.205 ( talk), 13:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I was asked by a user to update the diagram (I haven't edited the UK parliament pages in a long time) and noted that five parties were missing in the infobox and made the changes. I was reverted (and possibly rightly so) with the comment that for the purposes of this list and others on WP, these five members are considered same as non-affiliated. I've gone through the talk page and noted that there is no discussion on this and that in previous info boxes independent-party name groups had their own colour box. I also don't know anyother parliament infobox that excludes a small group solely by the fact that they are independent-party name, but instead have a seat threshold (all groups with only one seat are grouped with one colour and the data is still given). I have always been one to support putting small groups into one colour, as long as the names of all of those parties are listed in small text below as is done on a few pages which also omit small parties (there are very very few) however what I find troubling is making an arbitrary choice of excluding independent-partyname instead of including or excluding parties based on the number of seats. There is no reason the green party with only one seat should be listed while the indepentend-libdem with three seats is excluded. At the very least, if they are going to be bunched into one group then all the independent-partyname groups (all five of them) should be grouped into one colour, labeled so and the figures given in small text and not unafiliated as they are not unafiliated most importantly according to the official website of the house of lords which provides updated lists and figures.
House of Councillors (Japan), the Indian Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, National Assembly of South Africa and the Brazilian Federal Senate and Chamber of Deputies (Brazil) for examples per how they deal with multiple small parties or dividing different small parties into groups.
I'm not saying that some parties shouldn't be grouped, but that there is a clear seat threshold and/or grouping and that they are properly divided by affiliation, non-affiliation or independent status. Shabidoo ( talk) 19:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
"Crossbenchers are members who have no party-political affiliation and participate in parliamentary proceedings independently. They do not adopt collective policy decisions, but rather speak and vote as individuals. For administrative purposes all crossbenchers are part of the crossbench group. The group elects a Convenor whose role it is to provide information to crossbenchers and represent their interests in the House." Shabidoo ( talk) 15:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Shabidoo i'm on this...I think I've found a way to put an end to the .... WP:GF editing from Farolif-- Domdeparis ( talk) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Farolif please stop trying to impose your opinion with this childish edit warring. If you continue I will file an admin report. Domdeparis ( talk) 12:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
if your argument that they are not parties was valid then the non-affiliated and crossbenchers should be at the end too. Domdeparis ( talk) 13:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
MPs and Members of the Lords do not have to belong to a political party. Instead, MPs can sit as Independents and Lords can sit as Crossbenchers or Independents.
— "Independent MPs and Crossbench and Independent Lords"
The image representing the composition of the 805 seats in the House of Lords has colors which do not match the colored key provided below it. Specifically, the light blue color code of the Conservative Party does not match the dark blue dots representing this group in the image.
Could this be fixed? Thanks. KevinLiu ( talk) 14:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Bringing this issue up here first rather than hastily making a change under WP:BOLD;
The size of the House of Lords has varied greatly throughout its history. From about 50 members in the early 1700s, [1]...
Unless my sources are incorrect this statements is false. Membership of the House of Lords hovered around 220 members in the early 1700s; I do not know where the 50 members figure has come from. The earliest date in my source is 1714, which lists the composition as follows; Dukes 23, Marquises 2, Earls 74, Viscounts 11, Barons 67, Representing Scotland 16, Archbishops and Bishops 26. A total of 219. Going forward this had grown to 222 members in 1727, 224 in 1760, and by 1820 had jumped to 372. (Source: Cook, C. and Stevenson, J. (1980). British Historical Facts 1760–1830. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., p.50.)
The Electoral Reform Society is obviously a biased group with an agenda against the House of Lords, and maybe doesn't put out the most reliable academic works. If there are no objections, I will change this text and associated text and the associated source shortly. ToastButterToast ( talk) 22:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This should probably be added by someone with more knowledge of the topic than I have. 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 17:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Many British are atheists. Their number is significant. They have supposedly equal rights, but that name is a disproof, also the Union Jack (UK National Flag), lots of heraldry and regional flags with Christian depictions. Is our tradition to oppress or to respect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4119:b900:c5cf:dc4b:2fc1:82c6 ( talk) 07:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Description under thrones picture says "Note that the Sovereign's throne (on left) is raised slightly higher than the consort's.". I'm not familiar how wikipedia works so I apoligize if what I'm about to say is not propper here. My suggestion is to look on how consort cussion is actualy much bigger, so big that consort will in fact seat higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.33.89 ( talk) 15:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In this sentence, "While the House of Commons has a defined number of seats membership [sic], the number of members in the House of Lords is not fixed." Shouldn't that be either seats or membership? Please clarify. Thanks. Autodidact1 ( talk) 02:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The House of Lords has a long tradition of slavery. Should this be under a controversies section? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/14/as-statues-of-slave-traders-are-torn-down-their-heirs-sit-untouched-in-the-lords — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.234.230 ( talk) 14:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
In the box labelled 'Structure', the seating for these Lords is shown in bright magenta. However, in the key to the plan, the colour for them is shown as a very bluish purple, totally unlike the magenta on the plan itself. I am well aware that blocks of colour appear different to dots of the same shade, but this is far more different than any other of the dot / block comparisons. I have looked at the 'code', and so far as I am concerned it might as well be in Navajo. Could someone more technical please have a look at this? Other comments on the shade difference would be welcome too. Sarandone2 ( talk) 22:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Across a number of UK government (especially ministry lists such as First Johnson ministry) and parliament articles, peers are referred to in lists and tables by their full formal style and title, rather than by name. Comment is invited as to whether this established practice is compatible with guidelines and WP:MOS. (See Talk:First Johnson ministry#MOS for listing current peers.) DBD 22:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment is invited as to whether this established practice is compatible with guidelines and WP:MOS.Nonetheless, there is no indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been tried (let alone exhausted), so I'm pulling the
{{
rfc}}
tag and leaving the discussion open, for now. @
DBD: Is this discussion solely about the content of the article
House of Lords? If so, fine; but if it concerns several articles, it would be better held at a more central location, such as
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
06:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
We certainly heard the rumours at the time. Is there any evidence? Francis Hannaway ( talk) 12:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
And having been left to answer my own query, if these are left as unreferenced rumours, oughtn't w better remove them Francis Hannaway ( talk) 16:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The number given is significantly lower than the actual number. 62.254.11.238 ( talk) 12:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I've created an article prayer motion for a variety of types of motion that can be introduced by members of the House of Lords; however, I don't know enough about parliamentary procedure to be able to weave a mention of it into this article. Can anyone help? — The Anome ( talk) 09:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
This is a reminder that as of 1999 membership of the House of Lords cannot be inherited.
1 Exclusion of hereditary peers.
No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.
— Section 1, House of Lords Act 1999
90 hereditary peers who sit in the House of Lords are elected by internal by-elections under section 2 of the 1999 Act. Although they inherit their peerage, they do not inherit their seat in the House of Lords.
In regards to the other two hereditary peers: The Earl Marshal is "excepted as holder of the office of Earl Marshal", and the Lord Great Chamberlain is "excepted ... as performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain." They two do not inherit membership in the House of Lords.
Critical Hippo (
talk)
13:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I read the membership section twice, and I still feel like I don't understand how a person becomes a member. Is there anyone with expertise in this subject? To simplify the language. Make this article more helpful to the layman like myself. Cheers Eatthecrow ( talk) 19:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | House of Lords is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 28, 2004. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Adding the "ref improve" tag because this article suffers from an embarrassing lack of sources. Some sections have no sources at all while others are just generally lacking. For such a key institution in British politics, its page should be well sourced. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 01:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be some inconsistencies on this article. The article constantly references the amount of hereditary peers as either 90 or 92. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.226.53 ( talk) 04:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This edit restored a sourced claim about the institution's supposed full and formal name. However, the actual sources cited for this are simply two petitions presented by members of the public, who address the House in such terms. As with the same point for the Commons - where at least there is an official source recommending this construction for petitions - it's not clear whether we can claim that this is therefore the official, formal name of the institution; it's just a form of address apparently used for specific contexts. I can't find much non-WP derived or non-petition based online evidence for this name. We surely need something that explicitly claims this is the formal name of the place before we assert as much here. N-HH talk/ edits 16:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I count 17 Non-affiliated members of the House of Lords not 19. Any consensus to change? Francium12 ( talk) 15:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The box on the right groups Peers as HM Government or HM (ml) Opposition. The way this has been done contains the two incumbent parties as the government, with everybody else as the opposition, including the Lords Spiritual and the Crossbenchers. I'm not sure whether this was done to reflect their function or their seating arrangements, but either way, it makes no sense that members of an established church would always be opposing its supreme leader. As for their seating, they always sit on the Government side of the House. Although non-aligned Peers could notionally be said to always be in opposition, I don't think this is completely accurate for Crossbenchers, given their unique roles and the fact that they don't sit on Government nor Opposition benches at all: they have their own benches aligned across the House, facing the Lord Speaker.
It might be better if we re-grouped the list according to seating arrangements. So the incumbent parties and Lords Spiritual are on the Government side, the Opposition and non-aligned Peers are on the Opposition side, and a separate grouping is created for the Crossbenchers. MaxwellEdisonPhD ( talk) 00:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The image: House of Lords current.svg.png is out of date because it shows UKIP as having only 2Lords, David Stevens, Baron Stevens of Ludgate has since joined the party from the Crossbenchers. Editors seem determined to constantly change the 3 back to a 2 because the image displayed has 2 purple seats. The image is wrong and is clearly causing too much confusion for editors to cope with, therefore it should be left out of the article until some1 decides to amend it! Just to confirm UKIP's 3 lords are: David Verney, 21st Baron Willoughby de Broke, Malcolm Pearson, Baron Pearson of Rannoch and David Stevens, Baron Stevens of Ludgate. Please see that this mistake is not made again. If we are to include an image it must be correct, as I say it is clearly causing too much confusion. 130.88.114.129 ( talk) 20:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a list of UK peers without citizenship ?
( User talk:Siyac) 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This is now being repeatedly added to the lead, despite my having queried and reverted its initial inclusion. The NYT piece cited here does not mention the term and it is not up to individual WP editors to claim that cited sources "cannot actually refer to" something that they very explicitly do refer to or correct those sources as to what they "evidently" meant, when they said no such thing. I'm no expert on all this archaic and arcane twaddle, and maybe the NYT is not the best source for this sort of thing, but searching for "agnatic accession" doesn't reveal anything in this context. Plus, as far as I can tell, agnatic refers to the very general principle of descent through the male line; it is not specifically about male vs female heirs, which is a different point. I'm happy to have this explained to me and be proved wrong, but can the person adding this make that effort? Thanks. N-HH talk/ edits 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the consistency point, but the addition of "The" in front every "Lord/Baroness .." reads very oddly and over-formally. It's not how you normally see these people described or titled. And if anything, we were more or less consistent in not using it before that edit – removing it from Hill rather than adding it to all the others seems the more obvious option on those grounds alone. N-HH talk/ edits 17:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
In the section "20th century", the following appeared: "Asquith then proposed that the powers of the House of Lords be severely curtailed." Prior to that sentence there was no identification whatsoever of "Asquith" or his role. I have changed the page to read "Prime Minister H. H. Asquith then proposed..." with appropriate link to the H. H. Asquith page. Akld guy ( talk) 22:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The current seating plan is a fine one but it isn't symetrical (it is difficult to visualise the difference between both sides when it is chopped off on the bottom right). I've tried many times to render it symetrically and this is my latest attempt. Here they are side by side:
I can easily convert the rounded squares to the square format as is currently used. I've added the same discussion to the house of commons talk page Any comments?
Shabidoo | Talk 02:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
House of Lords. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I want to add the above statement to the article. I tweeted this graph yesterday [4] - would it count as "original research" if I sourced the data from Wikipedia? best, Sunil060902 ( talk) 22:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Queen Victoria's second son, Alfred, was born in England and became the Duke of Edinburgh. Then when his uncle died in 1893, he inherited another dukedom: Saxe-Coburg Gotha; Thus, he became a regent of a (German State) foreign power in allegiance to the German Emperor, "intent on challenging England's supremacy as the foremost world power". In 1893, he is stated as the first person in recorded history to quit the Privy Council of his own volition, in 1893, he also relinquished his seat in the House of Lords.
Would the rules of membership of the (1893) House of Lords have continued to accept Prince Alfred as a member under such circumstances? Did he jump or was he pushed? Stephen2nd ( talk) 00:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Please can we clarify how " {{ HOLtotal}} " (see "edit" for code) is worked out, and potentially provide a source? 81.132.7.205 ( talk), 13:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I was asked by a user to update the diagram (I haven't edited the UK parliament pages in a long time) and noted that five parties were missing in the infobox and made the changes. I was reverted (and possibly rightly so) with the comment that for the purposes of this list and others on WP, these five members are considered same as non-affiliated. I've gone through the talk page and noted that there is no discussion on this and that in previous info boxes independent-party name groups had their own colour box. I also don't know anyother parliament infobox that excludes a small group solely by the fact that they are independent-party name, but instead have a seat threshold (all groups with only one seat are grouped with one colour and the data is still given). I have always been one to support putting small groups into one colour, as long as the names of all of those parties are listed in small text below as is done on a few pages which also omit small parties (there are very very few) however what I find troubling is making an arbitrary choice of excluding independent-partyname instead of including or excluding parties based on the number of seats. There is no reason the green party with only one seat should be listed while the indepentend-libdem with three seats is excluded. At the very least, if they are going to be bunched into one group then all the independent-partyname groups (all five of them) should be grouped into one colour, labeled so and the figures given in small text and not unafiliated as they are not unafiliated most importantly according to the official website of the house of lords which provides updated lists and figures.
House of Councillors (Japan), the Indian Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, National Assembly of South Africa and the Brazilian Federal Senate and Chamber of Deputies (Brazil) for examples per how they deal with multiple small parties or dividing different small parties into groups.
I'm not saying that some parties shouldn't be grouped, but that there is a clear seat threshold and/or grouping and that they are properly divided by affiliation, non-affiliation or independent status. Shabidoo ( talk) 19:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
"Crossbenchers are members who have no party-political affiliation and participate in parliamentary proceedings independently. They do not adopt collective policy decisions, but rather speak and vote as individuals. For administrative purposes all crossbenchers are part of the crossbench group. The group elects a Convenor whose role it is to provide information to crossbenchers and represent their interests in the House." Shabidoo ( talk) 15:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Shabidoo i'm on this...I think I've found a way to put an end to the .... WP:GF editing from Farolif-- Domdeparis ( talk) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Farolif please stop trying to impose your opinion with this childish edit warring. If you continue I will file an admin report. Domdeparis ( talk) 12:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
if your argument that they are not parties was valid then the non-affiliated and crossbenchers should be at the end too. Domdeparis ( talk) 13:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
MPs and Members of the Lords do not have to belong to a political party. Instead, MPs can sit as Independents and Lords can sit as Crossbenchers or Independents.
— "Independent MPs and Crossbench and Independent Lords"
The image representing the composition of the 805 seats in the House of Lords has colors which do not match the colored key provided below it. Specifically, the light blue color code of the Conservative Party does not match the dark blue dots representing this group in the image.
Could this be fixed? Thanks. KevinLiu ( talk) 14:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Bringing this issue up here first rather than hastily making a change under WP:BOLD;
The size of the House of Lords has varied greatly throughout its history. From about 50 members in the early 1700s, [1]...
Unless my sources are incorrect this statements is false. Membership of the House of Lords hovered around 220 members in the early 1700s; I do not know where the 50 members figure has come from. The earliest date in my source is 1714, which lists the composition as follows; Dukes 23, Marquises 2, Earls 74, Viscounts 11, Barons 67, Representing Scotland 16, Archbishops and Bishops 26. A total of 219. Going forward this had grown to 222 members in 1727, 224 in 1760, and by 1820 had jumped to 372. (Source: Cook, C. and Stevenson, J. (1980). British Historical Facts 1760–1830. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., p.50.)
The Electoral Reform Society is obviously a biased group with an agenda against the House of Lords, and maybe doesn't put out the most reliable academic works. If there are no objections, I will change this text and associated text and the associated source shortly. ToastButterToast ( talk) 22:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This should probably be added by someone with more knowledge of the topic than I have. 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 17:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Many British are atheists. Their number is significant. They have supposedly equal rights, but that name is a disproof, also the Union Jack (UK National Flag), lots of heraldry and regional flags with Christian depictions. Is our tradition to oppress or to respect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4119:b900:c5cf:dc4b:2fc1:82c6 ( talk) 07:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Description under thrones picture says "Note that the Sovereign's throne (on left) is raised slightly higher than the consort's.". I'm not familiar how wikipedia works so I apoligize if what I'm about to say is not propper here. My suggestion is to look on how consort cussion is actualy much bigger, so big that consort will in fact seat higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.33.89 ( talk) 15:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In this sentence, "While the House of Commons has a defined number of seats membership [sic], the number of members in the House of Lords is not fixed." Shouldn't that be either seats or membership? Please clarify. Thanks. Autodidact1 ( talk) 02:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The House of Lords has a long tradition of slavery. Should this be under a controversies section? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/14/as-statues-of-slave-traders-are-torn-down-their-heirs-sit-untouched-in-the-lords — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.234.230 ( talk) 14:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
In the box labelled 'Structure', the seating for these Lords is shown in bright magenta. However, in the key to the plan, the colour for them is shown as a very bluish purple, totally unlike the magenta on the plan itself. I am well aware that blocks of colour appear different to dots of the same shade, but this is far more different than any other of the dot / block comparisons. I have looked at the 'code', and so far as I am concerned it might as well be in Navajo. Could someone more technical please have a look at this? Other comments on the shade difference would be welcome too. Sarandone2 ( talk) 22:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Across a number of UK government (especially ministry lists such as First Johnson ministry) and parliament articles, peers are referred to in lists and tables by their full formal style and title, rather than by name. Comment is invited as to whether this established practice is compatible with guidelines and WP:MOS. (See Talk:First Johnson ministry#MOS for listing current peers.) DBD 22:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment is invited as to whether this established practice is compatible with guidelines and WP:MOS.Nonetheless, there is no indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been tried (let alone exhausted), so I'm pulling the
{{
rfc}}
tag and leaving the discussion open, for now. @
DBD: Is this discussion solely about the content of the article
House of Lords? If so, fine; but if it concerns several articles, it would be better held at a more central location, such as
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
06:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
We certainly heard the rumours at the time. Is there any evidence? Francis Hannaway ( talk) 12:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
And having been left to answer my own query, if these are left as unreferenced rumours, oughtn't w better remove them Francis Hannaway ( talk) 16:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The number given is significantly lower than the actual number. 62.254.11.238 ( talk) 12:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I've created an article prayer motion for a variety of types of motion that can be introduced by members of the House of Lords; however, I don't know enough about parliamentary procedure to be able to weave a mention of it into this article. Can anyone help? — The Anome ( talk) 09:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
This is a reminder that as of 1999 membership of the House of Lords cannot be inherited.
1 Exclusion of hereditary peers.
No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.
— Section 1, House of Lords Act 1999
90 hereditary peers who sit in the House of Lords are elected by internal by-elections under section 2 of the 1999 Act. Although they inherit their peerage, they do not inherit their seat in the House of Lords.
In regards to the other two hereditary peers: The Earl Marshal is "excepted as holder of the office of Earl Marshal", and the Lord Great Chamberlain is "excepted ... as performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain." They two do not inherit membership in the House of Lords.
Critical Hippo (
talk)
13:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I read the membership section twice, and I still feel like I don't understand how a person becomes a member. Is there anyone with expertise in this subject? To simplify the language. Make this article more helpful to the layman like myself. Cheers Eatthecrow ( talk) 19:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)