![]() | Privilege of peerage 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 June 26, 2010. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some sections of this (lengthy) article might really be in other articles, e.g. Precedence (although now that I look I see we also have United Kingdom order of precedence, and not much on the generic topic of precedence) and some of the material here (other than an overview of the topic as it related to this article) might be usefully moved/merged there. Noel (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I am unclear what this means:
I think the order of clauses needs to be reversed:
However, it is misleading to say the privilege of access was recommended for abolition, since the Committee in fact made a broader recommendation that the Privilege of Peerage be abolished, and thus also merits mention in the "Freedom from arrest" subsection, and indeed in the lede. Paragraph 369 of the Report states:
BTW the List of committees of the United Kingdom Parliament does not include the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege jnestorius( talk) 11:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Could this technical term be explained the first time it occurs? Thanks, MartinPoulter ( talk) 15:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Did it use to be the case that when sentenced to death a peer could choose to be hanged by a sliken rope rather than the normal hemp one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Struman ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Placed fact tag on statement that confounds "Legal Opinion" on a broad privilege with a very narrow statement about mentally ill Peers, assuming that it was supported by that cite in the body of the article. The usage "Legal Opinion" in the lede is implictly the consensus of some sort, not a single rendered opinion, and particulary not one on a corner case. Lycurgus ( talk) 16:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "Only three survived into the 20th century" in the intro implies there were other privileges beyond these three, which are not mentioned in the article. -- Beland ( talk) 21:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Privilege of peerage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Privilege of peerage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Privilege of peerage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1992/vol2/texte/1992scr2_0731.txtR.{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1992/vol2/texte/1992scr2_0731.txtR.{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1992/vol2/texte/1992scr2_0731.txtR.When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Article has non-cited content, excessively long quotations, a 3-year old cleanup tag on the top of the article. Does it still meet the FA criteria? ( t · c) buidhe 20:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
In Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Elizabethan England he says that legally speaking at least, peers could not be tortured, though he says that with Elizabeth on the throne, nothing was certain. I presume they kept this privilege up until legal torture ended in England in 1772. But I could be wrong. LastDodo ( talk) 16:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Privilege of peerage 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 June 26, 2010. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some sections of this (lengthy) article might really be in other articles, e.g. Precedence (although now that I look I see we also have United Kingdom order of precedence, and not much on the generic topic of precedence) and some of the material here (other than an overview of the topic as it related to this article) might be usefully moved/merged there. Noel (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I am unclear what this means:
I think the order of clauses needs to be reversed:
However, it is misleading to say the privilege of access was recommended for abolition, since the Committee in fact made a broader recommendation that the Privilege of Peerage be abolished, and thus also merits mention in the "Freedom from arrest" subsection, and indeed in the lede. Paragraph 369 of the Report states:
BTW the List of committees of the United Kingdom Parliament does not include the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege jnestorius( talk) 11:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Could this technical term be explained the first time it occurs? Thanks, MartinPoulter ( talk) 15:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Did it use to be the case that when sentenced to death a peer could choose to be hanged by a sliken rope rather than the normal hemp one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Struman ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Placed fact tag on statement that confounds "Legal Opinion" on a broad privilege with a very narrow statement about mentally ill Peers, assuming that it was supported by that cite in the body of the article. The usage "Legal Opinion" in the lede is implictly the consensus of some sort, not a single rendered opinion, and particulary not one on a corner case. Lycurgus ( talk) 16:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "Only three survived into the 20th century" in the intro implies there were other privileges beyond these three, which are not mentioned in the article. -- Beland ( talk) 21:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Privilege of peerage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Privilege of peerage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Privilege of peerage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1992/vol2/texte/1992scr2_0731.txtR.{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1992/vol2/texte/1992scr2_0731.txtR.{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1992/vol2/texte/1992scr2_0731.txtR.When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Article has non-cited content, excessively long quotations, a 3-year old cleanup tag on the top of the article. Does it still meet the FA criteria? ( t · c) buidhe 20:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
In Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Elizabethan England he says that legally speaking at least, peers could not be tortured, though he says that with Elizabeth on the throne, nothing was certain. I presume they kept this privilege up until legal torture ended in England in 1772. But I could be wrong. LastDodo ( talk) 16:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)